Talk:Jihad/Archive 3

Sixth Pillar of Islam
To my knowledge, Jihad is never referred to as the sixth pillar of Islam by Muslims. This is disinformation and should be deleted: "Jihad is sometimes referred to as "The sixth pillar of Islam" in honor of its religious status and in reference to the Five Pillars of Islam, although no verse of the Qur'an or hadith describes jihad as a sixth pillar." --Alberuni 01:10, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Your knowledge of Islam is very shallow. I did not put the info about the "sixth pillar of Islam" in there, someone else did. But I too have read that Jihad is sometimes referred to as the "sixth pillar of Islam." In due time, the a source for this information will be provided. In the meantime, I think it should be left as it, since hadiths with "weak isnads" that are rejected by most orthodox Muslim scholars are being used to water down the fundamental importance of jihad in Islam by calling physical warfare the "lesser Jihad." Thus the two claims balance eachother, and the reader can decide which view of jihad is more prevelant amongst the Muslim masses. --Pename 02:26, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Please delete the Sixth Pillar of Islam. THERE ARE AND ALWAYS HAVE BEEN FIVE PILLARS OF ISLAM. Unless Wikipedia is trying to misinform people - ?????????????????? Peacenik 2.12.2004 00:06

Section titled "Islamist terrorism" is POV
This should be placed in a different article as it has nothing to do with the philosophy of Islamic Jihad. - - - - - - - STOP ALL THIS BIGATORY. - - - - - - - - - - - - -  At the battle of Uhud the prophet was so worried about the opposing armies thirst he allowed them water before the battle commenced. All religious communities pervert the teachings of there supposed religion by justifying Holy War, Jews, Christians, Hindus et cetera. But in Islam the concept is not to destroy life unless you are forced to do so to protect you own life. Allah created all men that they have the choice and opportunity to worship the Divine. What sense is there in killing a life that in the fulness of time would loose the opportunity of FAITH. Muhammad was very particular that his followers did not kill other combatants. It is said that he was very angry when some soldiers killed an enemy man when he said he accepted Islam by affirmation. They reasoned that his affirmation was to save his life. Muhammad very angrily retorted 'How did you know what was in his mind.'Peacenik 11:57 on 1.12.2004

The title of the section reflects the author's POV. The text actually points out that Islamists do not consider it terrorism. "To non-Muslims, militant attacks under the rubric of jihad may be perceived as acts of terrorism. Two Islamist groups call themselves "Islamic Jihad": Egyptian Islamic Jihad and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Supporters of these groups perceive a strong religious justification for a militant interpretation of the term jihad as an appropriate response to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip." You forgot Hamas, Hezbollah and al-Qaida. --Alberuni 01:33, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * A discussion of Islamist terrorism is appropriate in an article about Jihad. Therefore a section titled "Islamist terrorism" is appropriate. --Pename 01:56, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * Just declaring your biased opinion as fact is not sufficient. You interpret Jihad as terrorism and want to impose your POV on an article that is about Jihad. --Alberuni 02:13, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * A discussion of Islamist terrorism is appropriate in an article about Jihad. Many Muslims do not see terrorism as Jihad, but many Muslims DO see terrorism as Jihad. The aim of this article is to present all the different views about Jihad in the Muslim world. That's why there is a sectonn on terrorism. --Pename 03:29, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * As the terrorists themselves say they're doing it because Allah commands, I think it's a good idea to have a section on Moslem terrorists.


 * No, the "terrorists" don't say they are doing it because Allah commands it. Even if they camouflage their terrorism in religious terms, the justification given are very specific and political, such as Israeli occupation of their land (in Hamas and PLO case), American occupation of Iraq (in Iraq case), and even reasons given by bin Laden are very political. In 2004 Bin Laden video he made this statement, "If Bush says we hate freedom, let him tell us why we didn't attack Sweden, for example."  Huh? OneGuy 00:47, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * "Even if they camouflage their terrorism in religious terms"? This is a clear case of unfalsifiability. Are the terrorists saying they do it because Allah commands? No? Then, obviously, they weren't doing it because Allah commands. But what if they do? Then they're "camouflaging" it. (Addition: you've clearly decided what you think without consulting the facts. Please refrain from making edits.)


 * No they don't. They give political reasons. When the justification given are clearly political and it happens in political dispute then it's political. People use religious phrases all the time. Even George Bush claimed, "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam" . That doesn't mean we need to insert the claim that some Christians invaded Iraq because God told them. The war was political, not religious OneGuy 10:35, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Sometimes (rarely), they do, like the Osama Binladin pre-election video .. which was a joke anyway, intended to influence the American election. Osama Binladin giving a speech about American values is a joke, considering he was in cahoots with the Taleban .. you call that freedom? And you do know the Swedish leadership was furious about Binladin's comments? And yes, George W. Bush has repeatedly invoked that name of God .. and his wars have clearly been religious, but I don't see how that relates to Jihad.


 * Bin Laden in his previous tapes also gave political justifications. As for being cahoots with Taliban, the US was in cahoots with mujahedeen in Afghanistan, then Northern Alliance. The US is in cahoots with Saudi Arabia and Egypt, both oppressive regimes. Anyway, we are getting off-topic here. Some of the violence, such as in Israel and Iraq, are clearly political. You have failed to convince me otherwise. OneGuy 23:01, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * That is a good thing, as I haven't been trying to convince you otherwise. I never said that all of the violence is religious - that kind of stand would be absurd. However, this is not to say that there is no religious violence, or that no violence has a religious factor.

72 virgins is an Islamophobe misinterpretation
The article has been seeded with Islamophobic hyperbole: "To many Muslims, a person who dies as a part of struggle against oppression is a shahid (martyr) and is assured a place in Janna (Paradise) where they will have 72 virgins, rivers of wine and fresh fruit." The 72 "virgins" are pure spirits who attend the deceased in Paradise. They are not virgins for sex like sex-obsessed westerners love to contemplate and ridicule.

"If the death of the person is certain, some consider the act martyrdom rather than suicide, which is a hell-worthy sin under Islamic religious law." This makes no sense. It should read, "Even if death is a certain outcome of the struggle against oppression, militants consider it an act of martyrdom. Suicide is a hell-worthy sin under Islamic religious law." --Alberuni 01:38, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * This is false. It is widely known that the Qur'an paints a picture of a carnal paradise, where there is wine, fresh fruit, thrones to sit on, garment of silk, and women to have sex with. Perhaps Alberuni has some sort of fringe belief about Islamic paradise, but the vast majority of Muslims believe that the fair maidens of paradise describe in the Qur'an, and the 72 virgins for martrys in paradise, described in the hadith, refer to a carnal paradise involving sex. This is a very common interpretation, both amongst Muslims and non-Muslims, and amongst common people and academic scholars; it is not an "Islamaphobe" interpretation. --Pename 02:00, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * Provide references to Islamic sources to substantiate your "it is widely known" ruse. Where is the carnality of Paradise described in the Qur'an? It is widely known in Islamophobic circles. That's about it. --Alberuni 02:11, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Here is an Islamic source that describes the virgins in the carnal paradise described in Islam: http://www.muslim-forum.de/index.php?showtopic=467&pid=3271&st=0&#entry3271


 * Here is a specific quote:
 * "There is nothing but joy and happiness in Paradise; there is no room for hatred and rancour in the hearts of the people of Paradise. Al-hoor al-‘iyn are something which Allaah has created to honour the people of Paradise and to increase their delight. Moreover a man will be given the strength of one hundred men for intercourse, so the large number will not have any effect on a woman, and her feelings towards her co-wives and her husband’s concubines will not be like her feelings in this world."


 * As you can see, both Muslims and non-Muslims interperet the "72 virgins" given the martyrs in Islamic paradise as being virgins for carnal intercourse in a carnal paradise. --Pename 02:20, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * Apparently, there is a Muslim "scholar" on a bulletin board in Germany who is as confused as you. Good job finding that obscure source to substantiate your generalization about what "many Muslims" believe. Are there descriptions of the carnality of Paradise in the Qur'an or hadith? --Alberuni 02:51, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Evidence from hadiths:


 * Narrated by Ahmad, 18827; classed as saheeh by Ibn Hibbaan, 16/443; and by Shaykh al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Jaami’, 1627:


 * It was narrated from Anas that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The believer in Paradise will be given such-and-such strength for intercourse.” It was said, “O Messenger of Allaah, will he really be able to do that?” He said, “He will be given the strength of a hundred (men).”


 * End of discussion. This hadith is concrete evidence that the Islamic paradise can be interpreted as a carnal paradise, and in fact is interpreted as such by most Muslims. --Pename 03:10, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, Pename copied the wrong citation from the German bulletin board. This hadith is not Narrated by Ahmad, 18827; classed as saheeh by Ibn Hibbaan, 16/443; and by Shaykh al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Jaami’, 1627. The bulletin board writer cites hadith Narrated by al-Tirmidhi, 2536; classed as saheeh by Ibn Hibbaan, 16/413; and by Shaykh al-Albaani in Saheeh al-Jaami’, 8106 but I have not been able to locate this hadith or independently confirm it. --Alberuni 00:27, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The "72 virigins of paradise" are called Houris in Arabic. There is already a Wikipedia article about this issue. But since you insist that the Islam does not say that Muslim men will have sex with the houris, here is proof from the Qur'an that Islamic paradise is carnal and involves sex (at least for the Muslim men in paradise):
 * "So [it will be] and We shall marry them to Houris with wide lovely eyes." [Qur'an 44:54]
 * The words "marry" in conjunction with "wide lovely eyes" are sexually suggestive. Combined with the Wikipedia entry on "houris" it can no longer be denied that Islam promised martyrs a carnal paradise involving sex with 72 virgins. --Pename 01:41, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

My recent edit
I intended to delete the absurd timeline, which - as I pointed out - constitutes POV propaganda in favor of terrorism, insofar as it classifies a variety of terrorist acts starting with the bizarre Hashshashin as "jihad". However, I accidentally deleted rather more than that, and find the software won't currently let me restore it. Without in any way implying that the rest of what I deleted is any good - I haven't read it yet - I do not object to restoring it apart from the timeline. - Mustafaa 01:45, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The timeline has been renamed to "Timeline of Islamist Military History" so as not to imply that all events listed in the timeline are universally concidered to be "legitimate Jihad" -Pename 01:56, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * Under such a title, it belongs in the Islamism article, not here. - Mustafaa 02:01, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * You think that a timeline of the miilitary history of Muslims does not belong in an article titled Jihad? THat's laughable. You just want to suppress any negative information about your religion. --Pename 02:04, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * Indeed I don't think it belongs here. For one thing, this is not a history article. For another thing, it is certainly not Wikipedia's place to define which wars constitute "jihad", and which "hirabah" - and the new title, far from alleviating the difficulty, merely highlights the timeline's irrelevance to this article. - Mustafaa 02:08, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * You are trying to assert that a timeline of the miilitary history of Muslims does not belong in an article titled Jihad. THat's laughable.


 * "it is certainly not Wikipedia's place to define which wars constitute "jihad", and which "hirabah"" <--- the timeline includes any military conflicts or terrorist attacks perpretrated under the banner of Jihad. whether or not you, or anyone else, approves of what happened does not mean that it did not happen. --Pename 02:14, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

"the timeline includes any military conflicts or terrorist attacks perpretrated under the banner of Jihad." No it doesn't - not remotely. If it did, it would be many times longer than the article itself. I don't see the Algerian War of Independence, or Emir Abdelkader's struggle, or World War I, or the struggle against the Taliban, or Usman dan Fodio, or the GIA, or any of the Hui's battles... you get the idea. Nor do I see evidence that many of these have ever even been claimed to be jihad; they include secular organizations like the PLF and the PFLP, among others. Completeness is impossible, and incompleteness on the order of this clearly biased. And - more generally - no; a "timeline of the military history of Muslims" belongs in, unsurprisingly, an article on the military history of Muslims - which this is not. - Mustafaa 03:33, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The Timeline is a joke. The guy has collected every terrorist attack and called it a timeline of Islamic military history. What a joke. Is terrorism and military history the same? This makes as much sense as someone would collect every terrorist attack and massacre committed by Israelis (such as Goldstein, Qana massacre etc) and sticking that in Judaism page as, "Timeline of Jewish military history." OneGuy 07:33, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * This list is found on many Islamophobic websites, where this fellow cribbed most of his material. He is a real scholar of hate. --Alberuni 00:28, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "This list is found on many Islamophobic websites, where this fellow cribbed most of his material." <--- No I did not. You are deliberately making false accusation, in blatentl violation of Wikipedia policy. Please cite the URL where you think I copied the timeline from, if you think that that is the case (it certainly is not -- I did not copy anything in the timeline from any external website). -- Pename


 * Do you guys want to decide what's legitimate jihad, and what's not? Are you Islamic scholars? Just include the list, and include a note that "all of these are not necessarily considered legitimate jihad". --some anon


 * Interesting argument. Are you an Islamic scholar?! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:56, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't see where the anon claimed to be an Islamic scholar. He actually said something quite contrary to this. Asking him if he's an Islamic scholar (and with an excalamation mark at that) is just evidence that you are hysterical and cannot comprehend simple communications in the English language. -- Pename


 * I'm not, although learning about Islam is sort of a hobby of mine. :) I just pointed out that it's not our place (that is, neither your OR mine) to point out whether some specific activity was "Islamic" or not (considering that many Moslems disagree over what's Islamic or not, as well). IF such a timeline is included, it should specify all attacks that could possibly have been Islamic, and then include an extensive discussion about how Moslems feel about these.

If it's "suicide bombing", no cleric approves of it
Muslim clerics approve of legitimate resistance attacks, not suicide bombings or homicide bombings or terrorist attacks. The editor is mixing terms to make the clerics look like terrorist promoters. It is a different definition, similar to the likes of Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell applauding US Marines engaging in suicidal missions.

"There are Muslim clerics who authorize suicide bombing as a valid form of jihad, especially against Israel, her allies, and her supporters, believing that such attacks are legitimate responses to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza [2] (http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=subjects&Area=jihad&ID=SP54203). One of these so named is the United States."

The link provided does not name the United States.

"However, there is also a significant number of Muslims residing in the United States and the United States gives more foreign aid to all Muslim countries together than it does to Israel, the largest single recipient of such aid."

This is the editor's complete editorial fabrication without independent source. To refite the content, it should be pointed out that Israel is provided more aid in total than any other country. Israel receives far more per capita than all Arab countries combined. Most of the US aid to Arab countries is part of a payoff for making peace with Israel, so in a way it is also aid to Israel. Israel is guaranteed military superiority by the US. etc etc. --Alberuni 01:49, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * It is widely known that many Islamic clerics approve of suicide bombings, especially against Israelis. Of course they do not refer to them as "suicide bombings," instead they refer to such attacks as "martrydom operations." The links and references in the article give explicit examples of clerics approving of suicide bombings. --Pename 02:02, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * "It is widely known" doesn't cut it in an neutral encyclopedia. If the cleric approves martyrdom operations, why do you continue to translate it as suicide bombings? That's MEMRI's interpretation/translation. MEMRI was established by "retired" Israeli Mossad officers. Their POV is as obvious as answeringislam.com although they do a better job of providing documentation to substantiate their slanted perspective. If the allegations are to be included they will be NPOVed and MEMRI will be cited as the source. --Alberuni 02:08, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "If the cleric approves martyrdom operations, why do you continue to translate it as suicide bombings?" <--- because "marytrdom operation" is a euphamism for "suicide bombing" --Pename 02:26, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * That's your (and MEMRI's) interpretation. This is an encyclopedia article. You can't switch words and meaning to suit your editorial desire. What if I take the meaning of US Defense Department and switch it for US Imperialism Department because "it is widely known" that in the US "defense" is a euphemism for stealing oil, oppressing other countries and killing people to support US imperialism. No, it doesn't work that way. And neither do your edits to Jihad. Facts must be substantiated by references, not by opinions and interpretations. --Alberuni 02:43, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Every informed and rational person in the world knows that there are Muslim clerics who approve of suicide bombings, especially against Israel. This is so commonly known that it is beyond question. The appropriate sources have been given and the evidence is ample. The wikipedia entry on suicide bombing also confirms that a large number of Muslims support suicide bombings, and that suicide bombings are often called "martyrdom operations" by Muslims. --Pename 02:58, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * Someone's practicing Taqiyya again. To say that no cleric approves of it is not ignorance but lying. Rather, it should be pointed out that 'a minority' or 'some' or 'many' or 'most' do .. does anyone have specific statistics on this?


 * That was real sneering comment there, dude. First of all, Taqiyya is only Shi'a doctrine. I don't know if Alberuni is even Shi'a. Second, if instead of relying on anti-Islamic sites, you go to Shi'a sites, they explain Taqiyya quite differently, such as "al-Taqiyya" literally means: "Concealing or disguising one's beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies at a time of eminent danger, whether now or later in time, to save oneself from physical and/or mental injury." see. I don't think that applies in this case of posting to wiki. OneGuy 01:15, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * And I will add (though I am not that familiar with Shi'a doctrines; though I have seen this on many anti-Islamic sites), I don't Taqiyya means "lying." My guess is it means concealing your belief to save physical/mental harm. That's not the same as lying. This shi'a doctrine probably developed because they were minority and usually persecuted by majority Sunnis OneGuy


 * Forgive me if I seem insulting, I meant to seem so, because I lost my temper. Sorry. I just meant to point out the fact that it's pretty much common knowledge that at least some clerics approve of it. On the issue of Taqiyya, it could very much apply to a wiki, as in "preventing harm to Moslems as a whole".. but that's irrelevant.

Muhammad had no poets murdered
This is a typical Islamophobic smear. In fact, everything in the article from this line forward has nothing to do with Jihad and is mainly editorial "original research" by an Islamophobe editor. See Talk:Abu 'Afak and Talk:Asma bint Marwan "However, it is not entirely clear who is and who is not an "innocent person," nor is it entirely clear what qualifies as "creating disorder in the land." Muhammad concidered poetry against his new religion to be a form of "creating disorder in the land" and silenced a number of great poets of his day by having them murdered. " The excerpts from the Qur'an are not related to Jihad as even the editor admits: "The Qur'an uses the term jihad only four times, none of which refer to armed struggle. As such, the use of the word jihad, in reference to holy Islamic war, was a latter day invention of Muslims. However, the concept of holy Islamic war was not itself a latter day invention, and the Qur'an does contain passages laying out the theory and practice of armed struggle (qi'tal) for Muslims." These sections are all irrelevant to Jihad (except as it is misinterpreted by Islamophobes) and so it will all be deleted or moved to appropriate articles for NPOV sake. --Alberuni 02:03, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, he did. it's written clearly in the sira. your fringe beliefs do not reflect what most believes beleive. even today people are executed for criticizing islam, so what are you talking about?  You are an extreme apologist, and therefore your point-of-view is completely non-neutral and not fit for an enclylopedia entry. --Pename 02:10, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * The story is a well-known fraud, like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, seized upon by bigots to smear the Prophet Muhammad. This source completely refutes it. . The subject matter is irrelevant to Jihad anyway. These encyclopedia articles need to be NPOV, not the Franklin Graham hate-speech POV version that you are pushing. --Alberuni 02:37, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "The story is a well-known fraud, like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion" <--- the stories of Asama bint Marwan, Abu Awf, and others like them, appear in the Sira (biography of Muhammad) written by the early Muslim historian Ibn Ishaq. Ibn Ishaq's Sira is the earliest written biography about Muhammad. It doesn't get anymore reliable than that. Every other biography written about Muhammad is based on what Ibn Ishaq wrote in his Sira. The Sira is a reliable source of information about Muhammad, while Protocols of the Elders of Zion is not a reliable source of information about Jews. Both common people and academics, both Muslim and non-Muslim, believe that Ibn Ishaq's Sira is quite reliable. Why would Ibn Ishaq, a devout Muslim, smear Muhammad? Ibn Ishaq and his contemporaries did not see these stories as smears against Muhammad, they saw these stories as illustrations of Muhammad's strength, success, and manliness, because in medieval Arabia it was very common and completely acceptable to assasinate poets (poetry was the primary medium of political discourse in medieval Arabia).  --Pename 02:54, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * the qur'an actually has a chapter called "The Poets" in which "the poets" are condemned. -- anon


 * Post proof, the exact verse, and major different interpretations by citing Islamic and neutral sites on that verse. You have twisted and misrepresented facts before. Your above one line comment is just another twist. This is not anti-Islamic propaganda site. You need to find the right site if that's your goal. This is supposed to be an Encyclopedia article. OneGuy 06:51, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * CHAPTER 26 of the Qur'an is titled AL-SHUARA (THE POETS). It contains the following verses:
 * 026.224
 * YUSUFALI: And the Poets,- It is those straying in Evil, who follow them:
 * PICKTHAL: As for poets, the erring follow them.
 * SHAKIR: And as to the poets, those who go astray follow them.


 * 026.225
 * YUSUFALI: Seest thou not that they wander distracted in every valley?-
 * PICKTHAL: Hast thou not seen how they stray in every valley,
 * SHAKIR: Do you not see that they wander about bewildered in every valley?


 * 026.226
 * YUSUFALI: And that they say what they practise not?-
 * PICKTHAL: And how they say that which they do not?
 * SHAKIR: And that they say that which they do not do,


 * 026.227
 * YUSUFALI: Except those who believe, work righteousness, engage much in the remembrance of Allah, and defend themselves only after they are unjustly attacked. And soon will the unjust assailants know what vicissitudes their affairs will take!
 * PICKTHAL: Save those who believe and do good works, and remember Allah much, and vindicate themselves after they have been wronged. Those who do wrong will come to know by what a (great) reverse they will be overturned!
 * SHAKIR: Except those who believe and do good and remember Allah much, and defend themselves after they are oppressed; and they who act unjustly shall know to what final place of turning they shall turn back.


 * Interpretation from an Islamic website is not entirely neccessary because the messages of these verses is clear and umabigious, and the messsage itself is self-explanatory. However, if one does want to know the traditional interpretion of these verses, one must turn to the Tafsir (classical exegesis of the Qur'an]] of Ibn Kathir. The website Tafsir.com has a section explaining the above verses - the section is titled, "[The Exception of the Poets of Islam]" The title of the section explains its contents (it most dwellls on the last verse, 026.227). Also, the historical context of the verse must be understood. Specifically, it is important to understand the central importance of poets and poertry in medieval Arabia  -- in medieval Arabia, oral poetry was the primary medium by which history, political discourse, propoganda and religion were transmitted. Thus they poets were given such importance as to have one of the Qur'an 114 chapters named "the poets." -- anonymous

Fixing Pename's mess
This will take some time... starting with the section I just edited:


 * "Orthodox Muslims do not see this as logically sound, and believe that it is Islam's goal to establish a global theocratic empire. Such Muslims wish to return to the days when a single Islamic Empire was ruled by a single Caliph. Islamists see this as a pious and important ambition, and they find justification for their imperialist beliefs in the mainstream Islamic legal tradition of the four Madhabs, which was codified in the early centuries of the budding Islamic empire.

Uh, no. Have you been reading too much LGF or something? "It is Islam's goal to establish a global theocratic empire" indeed!


 * "Mainstream Muslim scholarship continues to see its historical imperialism, such as when Islamic armies conquered Spain, marched half way into France, laid siege to Vienna, and invaded large portions of Eastern Europe, as blessed and legitimate occurrences of jihad."

Not quite. The conquest of Spain would be widely accepted as legitimate Jihad; the Ottoman Empire's deeds are considerably more disputed.


 * "The conquest of Spain would be widely accepted as legitimate Jihad" <---you have admitted that Muslims widely view wars of conquest, even conquests of European lands, as "legitimate Jihad." This means you have no grounds on which to dispute the claim that Muslims widely view wars of conquest as legitimate Jihad. --Pename 02:48, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * I like that "even conquests of European lands" touch - I assume your implication is that it's always OK to conquer African and Asian lands. And "Muslims widely view wars of conquest as legitimate Jihad"?  More accurately, "Muslims widely view some wars of conquest as legitimate Jihad" - if they were carried out to end religious oppression, or (as is believed to have been the case in Spain) they were invited in by people within the kingdom.


 * Historians dispute whether forced conversion was or was not carried out during the era of Islamic imperialism which lasted approximately 1,300 years. Whether or not "conversion by the sword" was systematically carried out,

Actually, they don't and it wasn't.


 * Historians do, in fact, dispute whether or not conversions by the sword took place and if so how widespread such practices were. Almost everyone has heard of this dispute. You cannot deny that the dispute itself doesn't exist, that no historian has ever concidered whether or not such practices took place. --Pename 02:48, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * No - almost everyone has heard of this claim, which originated as Christian propaganda. If historians dispute this, I assume you can name a few examples? - Mustafaa 03:16, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * it is established that the jizyah (a tax laid exclusively on non-Muslims whose proceeds go to the government) created a kind of economic and social apartheid in which non-Muslims were economically and socially punished by the state for not converting to Islam. Non-Muslims payed jizya while Muslims, under the empire, payed a taxed called the zakat (a so-called "charity tax" which all Muslims pay even today, but instead of paying to the state they now pay zakat to charities of their choice). The zakat is a 2.5% tax, while the jizyah was about a 10% income tax; as explained in the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on jizyah, "many converted to Islam in order to escape the tax."  Non-Muslims were also usually denied entry to high-ranking military and civil service positions, although there were historical exceptions such as the Mughal Empire where non-Muslims did reach high-ranking positions.

This entire section couldn't be more irrelevant to the article if it tried, even if it were NPOVed. This has nothing to do with jihad.


 * The paragraph on jizya IS relevant, and its relevance is explained in the discussion here titled  --Pename 02:48, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * In the same spirit, today in several Islamic countries, Muslims who are known to have left the religion are accused of apostasy and are given an ultimatum to either convert back to Islam or face execution; though in modern times, such executions have been rare to nonexistent in some Muslim countries.

So is this.


 * The issue of apostacy, and history of the apostate tribes in the early days of Islam, relates to debate about whether or not forced conversions took place while the Muslims were waging their Jihads of conquests in order to expand the Islamic empire and the rule of the Caliph (a debate which you apparently think does not exist). --Pename 02:48, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Economic motivations - as the theorists of capitalism constantly remind us - do not constitute "force". Nor do taxes - or executions for apostasy - constitute any part of jihad. The wider debate on why so many people in the Islamic empire ultimately converted to Islam is interesting, but is not relevant to this article, which at most would describe the nature of the conquest itself, not its possible consequences centuries later. The explanation above may have convinced whoever you were arguing with, but it does not convince me. - Mustafaa 03:16, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Economic discrimination based on relgion is a form of oppressive force. --Pename 03:34, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * No, force is a form of force. Economic discrimination is a form of differential taxation.  I guess you think rich people are being subject to "oppressive force" if they pay higher tax rates than poor people... - Mustafaa 03:41, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thoughts on this article
I have a few questions I'd like to have answered about this article, mainly so we can tighten it up a bit and reduce edit wars and bias.

As Islamic "Holy War"

 * "The Islamic legal tradition identifies two types of armed religious warfare, namely the defensive jihad and the offensive jihad. Most Muslims consider armed struggle against foreign occupation or oppression by domestic government to be worthy of defensive jihad. In colonial times, Muslim populations often rose up against the colonial authorities under the banner of jihad (examples include Daghestan Chechnya against Russia, the Indian Mutiny against Britain, and the Algerian War of Independence against France). In this sense, defensive jihad is no different from the right of armed resistance against occupation that is sanctioned under the UN and International Law, though armed resistance against one's own domestic government is not sanctioned by international humanitarian law."

What Islamic legal tradition? References to this?


 * A quick search on google for "offensive jihad" will bring up many, many sources, both Muslim adnd non-Muslm. I have edited the article and added a source: http://i-cias.com/e.o/jihad.htm (Enclyopedia of the Orient). --Pename 03:43, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * "Offensive jihad is the waging of wars of aggression and conquest against non-Muslims in order to bring them and their territories under Islamic rule."

Reference to either where this is stated in doctrine, or who has stated this? If we can't provide a scholar or commentator who says this, then I think this is getting to be original research. Please note that I'm not saying that this is not the case, but I would like some external verification from a reasonably well-known and respectable source.


 * A reference to the Enclyopedia of the Orient entry on Jihad has been added as a reference to the claim regarding offensive jihad. Offensive Jihad is mentioned in the Enclyopedia of the Orient: " offensive jihad, i.e. attacking, is fully permissible in Sunni Islam" --Pename 03:55, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * And on what basis is the Encyclopedia of the Orient an authority? Indeed, how do we know that it's any more reliable than Wikipedia?  Its self-description is scarcely convincing.  Better and more detailed sources are clearly called for. - Mustafaa 03:57, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I've added more sources and evidence of Offensive Jihad in the Offensive Jihad section --Pename 08:30, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * "Liberal Muslims, today, dispute its necessity."

Who are "Liberal Muslims"? Who in particular is disputing this?


 * "Liberal Muslims" refers to liberal minded, progressive Muslims who say that the offensive Jihads are not longer needed, even though the traditonal Islamic law say that it is mandatory. These people are liberal because they are willing to break away from long standing traditions. It is common sense that there are Muslims do reject the traditional imperialism of their religion; there is no need to say who in particular. --Pename 03:51, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * "Some say that it was practiced only to preserve Islam from destruction, and that the concept is now obsolete because freedom of religious practice is present in most of the world. "

Warning! Weasel words! Who says this?


 * This has been edited. This refers to what the "liberal Muslims" say about Islam's traditional imperialism. One could also say that this is the argument made by apologists for Islam, but I decided against exhibiting such hostility against progressive liberal Muslims who try to ideologically break away from traditions such as Islamist imperialism. --Pename 03:55, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * "Others argue that it is questionable whether Muslims established the second-largest empire in the history of the world, through war and conquest, only to preserve Islam from destruction. Orthodox Muslims do not see this as logically sound, and believe that it is Islam's goal to establish a global theocratic empire. Such Muslims wish to return to the days when a single Islamic Empire was ruled by a single Caliph."

Are the "others" Orthodox Muslims? Who or what are Orthodox Muslims?


 * "Orthodox" is a word used to describe the traditionalist faction within a major religion. Anyway, this section has been largely rewritten to address your concerns. --Pename 08:29, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * "Islamists see this as a pious and important ambition, and they find justification for their imperialist beliefs in the mainstream Islamic legal tradition of the four Madhabs, which was codified in the early centuries of the budding Islamic empire."

Can we have specific examples of Islamists and what they have said?


 * this has been rewritten. everyone knows that the muslim masses yearn for the glory days of Islam when the ISlamic empire was the world's superpower. Muslims do not see their imperial past as unethical and unfortunate, as many Westerners (especially liberals) have come to see their imperial past as unfortunate and unethical. --Pename 08:29, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * "Mainstream Muslim scholarship continues to see its historical imperialism, such as when Islamic armies conquered Spain, marched half way into France, laid siege to Vienna, and invaded large portions of Eastern Europe, as blessed and legitimate occurrences of jihad."

Define "mainstream Muslim scholarship". Please give examples of where "mainstream Muslims" have said this... though we can't until we define what is meant by mainstream.


 * this has been written --Pename 08:29, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * "Historians dispute whether forced conversion was or was not carried out during the era of Islamic imperialism which lasted approximately 1,300 years."

Which historians? Which historians are disputing this? Can we have references to such disputes?


 * i've elaborated on this, and described which historians --Pename 08:29, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * "Whether or not "conversion by the sword" was systematically carried out, it is established that the jizyah (a tax laid exclusively on non-Muslims whose proceeds go to the government) created a kind of economic and social apartheid in which non-Muslims were economically and socially punished by the state for not converting to Islam. Non-Muslims payed jizya while Muslims, under the empire, payed a taxed called the zakat (a so-called "charity tax" which all Muslims pay even today, but instead of paying to the state they now pay zakat to charities of their choice). The zakat is a 2.5% tax, while the jizyah was about a 10% income tax; as explained in the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on jizyah, "many converted to Islam in order to escape the tax."  Non-Muslims were also usually denied entry to high-ranking military and civil service positions, although there were historical exceptions such as the Mughal Empire where non-Muslims did reach high-ranking positions. The Sira (biography of Muhammad) also mentions the wars against entire Arab tribes who were followers of Islam while Muhammad lived, but tried either to defect from the religion when its prophet died. In the same spirit, today in several Islamic countries, Muslims who are known to have left the religion are accused of apostasy and are given an ultimatum to either convert back to Islam or face execution; though in modern times, such executions have been rare to nonexistent in some Muslim countries."

Uh... this appears to be getting away from Jihad. How is this relevant to the article? Could we have an explanation of why this is important and relevant to Jihad? Otherwise it may have to go.


 * this is indeed relevant to the subject of Jihad. For clarity, this paragraph has been put into subsection 2.2.1: "Offensive Jihad as a Method for the Propagation of Islam" --Pename 08:29, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * "Jihad is sometimes referred to as "The sixth pillar of Islam" in honor of its religious status and in reference to the Five Pillars of Islam, although no verse of the Qur'an or hadith describes jihad as a sixth pillar."

When has Jihad been referred to as "the sixth pillar of Islam"? Who by? Not everyone refers to it as such it seems. This is very unclear. Could we have this clarified?


 * i've deleted the "sixth pillar" comments. i've already read that jihad is sometimes called the "sixth pillar of islam" but the person who inserted this into the wikipedia article did not bother to provide a source, and i dont have a source. it's also unimportant anyway, so i deleted it. --Pename 08:29, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

(more to come)

Ta bu shi da yu 03:22, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you agree with so many of my points. See my edits for my answers to a lot of these issues. - Mustafaa 03:38, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I do agree with many of your points, though I am not a Muslim. I dislike it when people mischaracterise my faith (I'm a Christian) and I dislike it when they mischaracterise yours! I hope you will be able to help us constructively NPOV and clarify information in this article. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:03, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Political military authority

 * "Muslims hold that an "Offensive Jihad" can only be declared by a lawful and legal Muslim authority, traditionally the Caliph. However, no authority is needed for the "Defensive Jihad" to become effective in Islamic traditional law, which holds that when Muslims are attacked then it becomes obligatory for all Muslim men of military conscription age, within a certain radius of the attack, to take up arms against the attackers. If the attacker is not defeated, then the "radius of obligation," so to speak, continues to expand, until it may encompass the whole world and every Muslim male of military conscription age."

Again, an earlier part of the article needs to clarify where it states that there is such a thing as an "Offensive Jihad" and a "Defensive Jihad". Also, a reference to the information about "radius of obligation" needs to be provided, as there is a risk that this will be accused of being original research. This definitely needs tightening.


 * "The question of which Muslim authority, if any, may carry out duties such as declaring Jihad has been problematic since March 3, 1924 CE, when Kemal Atatürk abolished the Caliphate, which the Ottoman sultans had held since 1517. There is no longer a single Muslim authority, which is considered a violation of the shariah (see Caliph). Sunni Islam (the largest denomination) has no religious hierarchy comparable to that of many Christian churches (although Shi'a Islam, which was historically persecuted by the Islamic state, does); its religion and government have been at times tightly woven into a political system known as the Caliphate, or khalifah. (Many of those termed Islamists in contemporary political rhetoric wish to return to this system of government.) Due to this lack of clerical organization amongst the vast majority of Muslims, any adherent may proclaim himself an "ulama" (Islamic scholar) and proclaim a defensive jihad by way of fatwa. Recognition is at the discretion of the listener."

Seems OK.


 * "In the absence of a Caliph, the only remaining "de facto" Islamic leaders would be the heads of the Islamic nation-states. However, due to the rampant corruption plaguing governments in the Muslim world and the view amongst some Muslims that the democratic or monarchic nation-state is an un-Islamic institution, there is widespread distrust of these heads of state. As a result Islamist movements (such as Al Qaida or Hamas) have declared jihad themselves, thus attempting to bypass (and even overthrow) the de facto authority of the nation-state."

Rampant corruption? Please expand and clarify! Also, another weasel word alert: "the view amongst some Muslims". Which Muslims please. Is the article referring to Al Quaida or Hamas exclusively, or is it referring to these and other movements? Or is it referring to other organisations entirely? - Ta bu shi da yu

I would add:
 * (although Shi'a Islam, which was historically persecuted by the Islamic state, does)" : the "historically persecuted by the Islamic state" bit is both vague (Shia have established their own states many times, starting with the Idrisids, and done their own fair share of persecuting too) and explains nothing (Kharijites were persecuted and developed no such structure.)
 * "Due to this lack of clerical organization amongst the vast majority of Muslims," - "lack of clerical organization" is a decided oversimplification of a complex issue. - Mustafaa 03:45, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Please, feel free! Be bold, and try to write from a neutral point of view. Please also cite external sources :) - Ta bu shi da yu 04:04, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I have - although this guy reflexively reverted it. - Mustafaa 04:10, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Islamist terrorism

 * To non-Muslims, militant attacks under the rubric of jihad may be perceived as acts of terrorism. Two Islamist groups call themselves "Islamic Jihad": Egyptian Islamic Jihad and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. Supporters of these groups perceive a strong religious justification for a militant interpretation of the term jihad as an appropriate response to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

OK, this seems OK. It's specific, seems pretty accurate and just attempts to state facts.


 * To many Muslims, a person who dies as a part of struggle against oppression is a shahid (martyr) and is assured a place in Janna (Paradise) where they will have 72 virgins, rivers of wine and fresh fruit.

I've heard this also, however where does this information come from? I've always wanted to know. Can we have a citation for this information?


 * If the death of the person is certain, some consider the act martyrdom rather than suicide, which is a hell-worthy sin under Islamic religious law. If non-combatant Muslims perish in such attacks, they are also considered shahid and thus have also secured a place in paradise. Hence, the only true victims are the kaffir, or unbelievers.

More weasel words! "some consider the act martydom rather than suicide". Who considers this martydom? Not only that, but for this whole paragraph I don't know where the writer is getting this information from. Sources for this information, please!


 * This section has been elaborated on. Sources are now given. --Pename 08:17, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * Those Muslims who disagree with the militant interpretation believe instead that suicide and killing civilians remain sins, since neither suicide nor attacks against civilians are considered legitimate outcomes of jihad.

Which Muslims disagree with the militant interpretation? Also, tighten up the language (I'll probably do this) in the last sentence.


 * I didn't write this paragraph and I'm not sure what to do with it. If someone else can improve upon it, it would be appreciated (e.g. if someone could elaborate on arguments by Muslim Islamic scholars AGAINST suicide bombings) --Pename 08:17, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * The basis of shahid can be traced back to the words of Muhammad prior to the battle of Badr where he stated:


 * "I swear by the One in whose hand Muhammad's soul is, any man who fights them today and is killed while he is patient in the ordeal and seeks the pleasure of Allah, going forward and not backing off, Allah will enter him into Paradise."


 * There are Muslim clerics who authorize suicide bombing as a valid form of jihad, especially against Israel, her allies, and her supporters, believing that such attacks are legitimate responses to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza . One of these so named is the United States. However, there is also a significant number of Muslims residing in the United States and the United States gives more foreign aid to all Muslim countries together than it does to Israel, the largest single recipient of such aid.

Do we have specific instances of Muslim clerics who authorize suicide bombings? The link may talk about this, I haven't had a chance to check this... perhaps we could clarify this.


 * Yes, the link gives a specific instance of such a Muslim cleric. Other such instances are mentioned in the Wikipedia entry on suicide bombing.


 * Many Islamic legal rulings view any killing of civilians (whether through combat or any other such militant activity) as against the ethics of Islam.

Good to hear, however can we have specific instances of these rulings so we can verify the validity of this statement?


 * I dont have any on me. I wish the person who wrote that sentence had given a reference. Maybe someone else can do this (e.g. a moderate Muslim contributor)?


 * Moreover, since terrorist organizations do not constitute any autonomous state or de facto authority, and because targets of jihad can only be recognized military targets, most Muslims do not consider terrorism to be an extension of jihad.

OK... this statement might be OK, but I think that we could clarify this.


 * I dont agree with this statement. I agree it needs clarification. It also needs references. It also has a Weasal Word. But I won't delete it for now; maybe someone can clean it up. --Pename 08:17, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * Islamist proponents of terrorism argue, on the other hand, that economic targets can be seen as military targets, and often cite Muhammad's numerous caravan raids (see Battle of Badr for a description of one such caravan raid and the war that it led to).

Which proponents is the article referring to?


 * The Qur'an specifically forbids attacking women, children, elderly people, and civilian buildings during a military campaign.

Where does it say this in the Qur'an? I am not an expert, and I would like specific information so that I can verify this claim (I'm not saying this info is wrong, it just needs to be clarified).


 * I don't think that the Qur'an actually forbids these things, I believe they are forbidden in the hadiths. The person who wrote this statement should have provided a verse number. Now we don't know what he or she was talking about. --Pename 08:17, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * However, there can be exceptions. Just as Western philosophies of war permitted harm to civilians and categorized it as "collateral damage," so too did Muhammad and his followers devise similar justifications.

OK, dangerous ground. Which Western philosophies is the article referring to? How is it relevant to Jihad? Are we comparing the same things? Islam is more than a philosophy, after all. It's a religion. This bit most definitely needs clarifying!


 * Western philosophies such as the modern study of ethics, and secular humanism. In Western philosophical thought on ethics, the concept and legitimacy of collateral damage is well-established. For example, droppings bombs that might killed civilians is not concidered wrong in the Geneva Conventions. I don't think it needs much clarifying - I think it's common knowledge that the concept of "collateral damage" has legitimacy in conteporary western thought and discourse.  --Pename 08:17, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * In 630 CE Muhammad led the Siege of al-Ta'if, where the Muslims first discovered catapults. Muhammad deemed it permissible to use the catapults against the enemy, despite the fact that women and children would be put at risk of being killed by the boulders and burning missiles launched from the catapults. Muhammad deemed this to be a sort of permissible collateral damage.

Very specific info, something this article lacks. Look OK to me.


 * One hadith discusses the circumstances in which military action may be taken against the enemy, even if it is known that fellow Muslims taken prisoner by the enemy would be killed as a result of such military action; the essential message is that it is permissible to take the life of an innocent person (even a fellow Muslim), during war, if it is demonstrably for the greater good.

Which hadith? Again, we need to verify this information.


 * I'm trying to locate this hadith. I've read it before, but must locate it. --Pename 08:17, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * The Qur'an denounces the killing of any person who is not guilty of at least one of two crimes:


 * "Whosoever killed a person - unless it be for killing a person or for creating disorder in the land - it shall be as if he killed all mankind; and whoso saved a life, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind." (5:32)


 * State the entire thing please. "Because of this, we decreed for the Children of Israel that anyone who murders any person who had not committed murder or horrendous crimes, it shall be as if he murdered all the people. And anyone who spares a life, it shall be as if he spared the lives of all the people. Our messengers went to them with clear proofs and revelations, but most of them, after all this, are still transgressing." (5:32)


 * However, it is not entirely clear who is and who is not an "innocent person," nor is it entirely clear what qualifies as "creating disorder in the land." Muhammad considered poetry against his new religion to be a form of "creating disorder in the land" and silenced a number of great poets of his day by having them murdered. One such silenced poetess was Asma bint Marwan. Another such poet was Abu 'Afak.

Specific information is included here, so that's good. Seems OK to me.


 * In a similar spirit, "Theo van Gogh (47), a Dutch filmmaker who had made a movie critical of some aspects of Islamic society and culture, has been shot dead in an Amsterdam street on November 2 [2004]. The late great-grand-nephew of famous Dutch painter Vincent van Gogh had received many death threats after releasing Submission last August, a short film detailing the treatment of Muslim women. He shrug off the threats, saying there was nothing offensive in his movie. The killer, a 26-year-old Moroccan residing in Holland, was wearing a long beard and Islamic garb when he shot and stabbed van Gogh in broad daylight. He was arrested after a shootout with the police." [ http://www.amren.com /mtnews/archives/2004/11/dutch_police_ar.php 3]

Uh... we don't need the whole report quoted verbatim. We can just state what happened and point people to the referenced information, also to the Theo van Gogh article. Perhaps clarification of the specific reasons for him being shot due to Jihad could be given also.


 * I removed the sentence about Theo Van Gogh "shrugging off" the death threats. As for the specific reason for his murder - it's stated right there above: he "had received many death threats after releasing Submission last August, a short film detailing the treatment of Muslim women." --Pename 08:17, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * Another famous incident of this kind was the death fatwa against Salman Rushdie, issued by Ayatollah Khomeini, in which Khomeini called upon any Muslim in the world to murder Salman Rushdie, because of the books which Rushdie wrote about Islam.

Fair point I think.


 * Today, most publicly known Western critics of Islam recieve a constant stream of death threats from Islamic fanatics seeking to silence them, and have to employ constant the service of body guards (Canadian TV producer and publicly known Muslim critic of orthodox Islam, Irshad Manji, is sometimes cited as the "new Salman Rushdie" and employs the service of a number of Israeli trained body guards). In the Muslim world, those who dare to publicly criticize Islam are usually executed or imprisoned by their governments, under laws against "spreading disorder through the land" and apostasy.

Seems OK, however someone may disagree.


 * Other examples of this ambiguity as to who is an "innocent person" and who is a "guilty person," and thus must be killed, are found in the discussion above suicide bombers in Israel (and their ideological supporters) who view all Isrealies as guitly persons who can legitimately be killed. Yet another example of this ambiguity can be found in the discussion above regarding the issue of apostasy in Islam, and the fact that traditionally Muslims who defected from Islam were guitly persons who had to be executed for their beliefs. Clearly, there are instances where Islam's and Islamists' views of who is innocent and who is guilty differ from modern secular democratic ideals. Also discussed earlier was Islam's 1,300 year history of imperialism and expansionism, a practice that started with Muhammad himself. Traditional Islamic jurists did not concider it a sin to aggressively make war against non-Muslims in order to conquer their lands; thus countless innocent lives were taken by Islam's imperial armies as they spread their empire, but the Islamists saw these non-Muslims as guilty persons who could legitimately be killed. The Qur'an explicitly outlaws many "crimes" which modern secular society sees as fundamental rights or civil liberties. The point being that the concept of who is an "innocent person" and who is a "guilty person" can vary widely between different cultures, nations, religions, and eras in history. Hence a solitary verse of the Qur'an declaring that "whosoever kills an innocent person or creates disorder in the land will burn in Hell" is not by any means the complete Islamic legal framework about who can and cannot be killed and under which circumstances.

I've done a bit of a copyedit already, but I think the piece needs tightening. Perhaps instead of saying "are found in the discussion above about" could be rephrased. This whole section seems to be arguing a point to convince the reader something. I think that this needs a whole lot of work, because we don't argue for or against anything, we only characterise and describe situations, facts and opinions. I think this clearly comes out in words like "the point being" (we're trying to make a point? Why?). This bit needs significant tightening!


 * The pargraph is not arguing for or against anything, it is describing the disparity between modern notions of "innocent persons" and the traditional Islamic (i.e. medieval Arab) notions of "innocent persons." In past centuries, Muslims deemed it permissible to aggressively wage wars of imperialism against non-Muslims. Normally, if somsone tries to kill you then that person is "guiltly" and can justifiably by killed. BUt if someone is not bothering you, and you kill that person, then most people would say that you've killed an "innocent person." But Islamic imperial ideology is not compatable with this notion of "innocent person" because imperialism requires attacking and killing people who are not bothering you. I think it's pretty a obvious fact and common sense fact that Islam's notions of "innocent" and "guilty" are different from modern secular liberal democratic ideas of about who are "innocent people" and who are "guilty." This is not an argument for against anything, it's a description of the state of current affairs as far as Islamic law compares to modern secular law. That's what this paragraph conveys. --Pename 08:18, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * This ambiguity and disagreement, within Islam, over who are "innocent persons" and who are "guilty persons" is most clearly evident in the modern history of Jihad and the theories of warfare that its modern proponents wrote. One of the most well known contemporary Jihad theorists was Sayyid Qutb (an Egyptian who was one of the founders of contemporary militant Islamic ideology) who wrote a series of books, while in prison, in which he declared that all people who participated in any form of government that was not an Islamic theocracy (either by participating in the councils of such a form of government, or campaigning for a political party in democratic system, or even encouraging people to vote in a democratic form of government) could be considered guilty persons who could justifiably be killed. In a recently aired documentary by BBC, titled "The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear," in its second eposide, it was explained that "The implication [of Qutb's belief] was that these leaders could justifiably be killed, because they had become so corrupted, they were no longer Muslims, even though they said they were." . One of Sayyid Qutb's followers was to become Osama bin Laden's personal mentor; he was an Egyptian named Ayman al-Zawahiri, who wrote (like Qutb, while in prison) an even more radical framework for the contemporary militant Islamic ideology. In the first eposide of the BBC documentary, it was explained that "The mystery, for Zawahiri, was why the Egyptian people had failed to see the truth and rise up [against their un-Islamic secular leaders]. It must be because the infection of selfish individualism had gone so deep into people’s minds that they were now as corrupted as their leaders. Zawahiri now seized on a terrible ambiguity in Qutb’s argument. It wasn’t just leaders like Sadat who were no longer real Muslims, it was the people themselves. And Zawahiri believed that this meant that they too could legitimately be killed. But such killing, Zawahiri believed, would have a noble purpose, because of the fear and the terror that it would create in the minds of ordinary Muslims. It would shock them into seeing reality in a different way. They would then see the truth."

Interesting information, however the paragraph starts by saying "This ambiguity and disagreement, within Islam, over who are "innocent persons" and who are "guilty persons" is most clearly evident in the modern history of Jihad and the theories of warfare that its modern proponents wrote." Then two proponents of an extreme view are given a large amount of coverage, from one source (a BBC series). There is nothing written about the disagreement that others have with their views, nothing about ambiguity over... something. Ambiguity over what? This seems biased to me, and should be expanded, clarified and NPOVed.


 * Ambiguity over who is an "innocent person," who is a "guilty person," who is a "real muslim," who can be killed and under what circumstances. There is a great deal of disagreement over these issues amongst Muslims, due to the ambiguity, in the Islamic ideology and legal theory, regarding these issues. But I agree that that the opposite point of view should also get more coverage in the article, like I said above, a moderate Muslim contributor could perhaps explain the arguments that moderate Muslims have against Islamist terrorism. --Pename 08:18, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Ta bu shi da yu 03:57, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Muhammad had no poets murdered
This is a typical Islamophobic smear. In fact, everything in the article from this line forward has nothing to do with Jihad and is mainly editorial "original research" by an Islamophobe editor. See Talk:Abu 'Afak and Talk:Asma bint Marwan "However, it is not entirely clear who is and who is not an "innocent person," nor is it entirely clear what qualifies as "creating disorder in the land." Muhammad concidered poetry against his new religion to be a form of "creating disorder in the land" and silenced a number of great poets of his day by having them murdered. " The excerpts from the Qur'an are not related to Jihad as even the editor admits: "The Qur'an uses the term jihad only four times, none of which refer to armed struggle. As such, the use of the word jihad, in reference to holy Islamic war, was a latter day invention of Muslims. However, the concept of holy Islamic war was not itself a latter day invention, and the Qur'an does contain passages laying out the theory and practice of armed struggle (qi'tal) for Muslims." These sections are all irrelevant to Jihad (except as it is misinterpreted by Islamophobes) and so it will all be deleted or moved to appropriate articles for NPOV sake. --Alberuni 02:03, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, he did. it's written clearly in the sira. your fringe beliefs do not reflect what most believes beleive. even today people are executed for criticizing islam, so what are you talking about?  You are an extreme apologist, and therefore your point-of-view is completely non-neutral and not fit for an enclylopedia entry. --Pename 02:10, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * The story is a well-known fraud, like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, seized upon by bigots to smear the Prophet Muhammad. This source completely refutes it. . The subject matter is irrelevant to Jihad anyway. These encyclopedia articles need to be NPOV, not the Franklin Graham hate-speech POV version that you are pushing. --Alberuni 02:37, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "The story is a well-known fraud, like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion" <--- the stories of Asama bint Marwan, Abu Awf, and others like them, appear in the Sira (biography of Muhammad) written by the early Muslim historian Ibn Ishaq. Ibn Ishaq's Sira is the earliest written biography about Muhammad. It doesn't get anymore reliable than that. Every other biography written about Muhammad is based on what Ibn Ishaq wrote in his Sira. The Sira is a reliable source of information about Muhammad, while Protocols of the Elders of Zion is not a reliable source of information about Jews. Both common people and academics, both Muslim and non-Muslim, believe that Ibn Ishaq's Sira is quite reliable. Why would Ibn Ishaq, a devout Muslim, smear Muhammad? Ibn Ishaq and his contemporaries did not see these stories as smears against Muhammad, they saw these stories as illustrations of Muhammad's strength, success, and manliness, because in medieval Arabia it was very common and completely acceptable to assasinate poets (poetry was the primary medium of political discourse in medieval Arabia).  --Pename 02:54, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Fixing Pename's mess
This will take some time... starting with the section I just edited:


 * "Orthodox Muslims do not see this as logically sound, and believe that it is Islam's goal to establish a global theocratic empire. Such Muslims wish to return to the days when a single Islamic Empire was ruled by a single Caliph. Islamists see this as a pious and important ambition, and they find justification for their imperialist beliefs in the mainstream Islamic legal tradition of the four Madhabs, which was codified in the early centuries of the budding Islamic empire.

Uh, no. Have you been reading too much LGF or something? "It is Islam's goal to establish a global theocratic empire" indeed!


 * "Mainstream Muslim scholarship continues to see its historical imperialism, such as when Islamic armies conquered Spain, marched half way into France, laid siege to Vienna, and invaded large portions of Eastern Europe, as blessed and legitimate occurrences of jihad."

Not quite. The conquest of Spain would be widely accepted as legitimate Jihad; the Ottoman Empire's deeds are considerably more disputed.


 * "The conquest of Spain would be widely accepted as legitimate Jihad" <---you have admitted that Muslims widely view wars of conquest, even conquests of European lands, as "legitimate Jihad." This means you have no grounds on which to dispute the claim that Muslims widely view wars of conquest as legitimate Jihad. --Pename 02:48, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * I like that "even conquests of European lands" touch - I assume your implication is that it's always OK to conquer African and Asian lands. And "Muslims widely view wars of conquest as legitimate Jihad"?  More accurately, "Muslims widely view some wars of conquest as legitimate Jihad" - if they were carried out to end religious oppression, or (as is believed to have been the case in Spain) they were invited in by people within the kingdom.


 * Historians dispute whether forced conversion was or was not carried out during the era of Islamic imperialism which lasted approximately 1,300 years. Whether or not "conversion by the sword" was systematically carried out,

Actually, they don't and it wasn't.


 * Historians do, in fact, dispute whether or not conversions by the sword took place and if so how widespread such practices were. Almost everyone has heard of this dispute. You cannot deny that the dispute itself doesn't exist, that no historian has ever concidered whether or not such practices took place. --Pename 02:48, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * No - almost everyone has heard of this claim, which originated as Christian propaganda. If historians dispute this, I assume you can name a few examples? - Mustafaa 03:16, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * it is established that the jizyah (a tax laid exclusively on non-Muslims whose proceeds go to the government) created a kind of economic and social apartheid in which non-Muslims were economically and socially punished by the state for not converting to Islam. Non-Muslims payed jizya while Muslims, under the empire, payed a taxed called the zakat (a so-called "charity tax" which all Muslims pay even today, but instead of paying to the state they now pay zakat to charities of their choice). The zakat is a 2.5% tax, while the jizyah was about a 10% income tax; as explained in the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on jizyah, "many converted to Islam in order to escape the tax."  Non-Muslims were also usually denied entry to high-ranking military and civil service positions, although there were historical exceptions such as the Mughal Empire where non-Muslims did reach high-ranking positions.

This entire section couldn't be more irrelevant to the article if it tried, even if it were NPOVed. This has nothing to do with jihad.


 * The paragraph on jizya IS relevant, and its relevance is explained in the discussion here titled  --Pename 02:48, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * In the same spirit, today in several Islamic countries, Muslims who are known to have left the religion are accused of apostasy and are given an ultimatum to either convert back to Islam or face execution; though in modern times, such executions have been rare to nonexistent in some Muslim countries.

So is this.


 * The issue of apostacy, and history of the apostate tribes in the early days of Islam, relates to debate about whether or not forced conversions took place while the Muslims were waging their Jihads of conquests in order to expand the Islamic empire and the rule of the Caliph (a debate which you apparently think does not exist). --Pename 02:48, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Economic motivations - as the theorists of capitalism constantly remind us - do not constitute "force". Nor do taxes - or executions for apostasy - constitute any part of jihad. The wider debate on why so many people in the Islamic empire ultimately converted to Islam is interesting, but is not relevant to this article, which at most would describe the nature of the conquest itself, not its possible consequences centuries later. The explanation above may have convinced whoever you were arguing with, but it does not convince me. - Mustafaa 03:16, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Economic discrimination based on relgion is a form of oppressive force. --Pename 03:34, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * No, force is a form of force. Economic discrimination is a form of differential taxation.  I guess you think rich people are being subject to "oppressive force" if they pay higher tax rates than poor people... - Mustafaa 03:41, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Please review the American Revolution. The advocates of American independence from Great Britain felt they were being forced to pay  otherise unnecessary taxes. I think a good argument could be made for Pename's position, although it wouldn't be restricted to religion. --Viriditas 08:31, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Great New Article Feature: TIMELINE!
I have added a great new feature to the article. I am developing a timeline of all major military activities ever waged under the banner of Jihad. Of course many different sects of Muslims disagree with eachother of which of these activities were Jihad and which were not, but one thing is clear: the Muslims who took part in these activities truly believed they were taking part in Jihad, and they gave their lives for their belief (they also took the lives of many others, due to their belief and militant actions). The people who did these things believed they were taking part in Jihad. Whether or not they really were taking part in Jihad is a theological debate that has no place on an NPOV encylopedia - it is a subtle issue that is highly disputed amongst Muslims themselves, and the proper place for such arguments are Islamic website where Muslims argue for and against whether or not organizations such as Hizbullah and Hamas are really taking part in Jihad. The purpose of Wikipedia is simply to observe, record, and categorize these events. Military actions under the banner of Jihad belong in the timeline of Islamist military history, featured in this article.

One important thing to note about the timeline is that it is a WORK IN PROGRESS. Every single terrorist incident has been covered, but there is a lot of other history that is missing, especially the history of wars fought by the Islamic empires.

Why is this a great feature? Because if someone is trying to research the history of Jihad, all he or she has to do is come to the Wikipedia entry on Jihad, and s/he will find a convenient timeline that lists every major military incident in the entire history of Jihad.

--Pename 08:39, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * But are all Islamic military conquests necessarily Jihad? - Ta bu shi da yu 09:21, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Any military campaign carried out by Muslims under the banner of Jihad should be categorized under the phenomenon of Jihad. Wikipedia should observe this phenomenon, including its more extremist manifestations, and simply observe, record, categorize, and report these incidents. Wikipedia is not the right place for Islamic theological debates over which of these manifestations of Jihad is approved by Allah and which are not approved by Allah. --Pename 20:39, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * If you add any terrorist attack as "Islamic military history", it will be deleted. It's as simple as that OneGuy 13:27, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * This is a perfect example of the kind of brutish ignorance that dominates the edits of this article. OneGuy, maybe you can convince your little Islamic brain that no terrorist incident in history was ever related to Jihad. But when terrorists groups with names like "Islamic Jihad" carry out their deeds, the world knows that their actions are deeply related to Jihad and Islam. --Pename 20:42, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * A "perfect example of the kind of brutish ignorance that dominates the edits of this article"? Are you also refering to your own?! You can't be for real... - Ta bu shi da yu 05:19, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No timeline at all is acceptable in this article; it cannot be a comprehensive list of every self-proclaimed jihad for practical reasons, nor can it be Wikipedia's place to choose which ones count as jihads and which ones don't. The timeline Peniel actually tried to insert is even less acceptable: apparently, in his mind the Algerian War of Independence (1 million Algerian martyrs) and the Mahdi and Imam Shamil pale into insignificance beside such enormous battles as "1975: Tel Aviv Savoy Hotel guest attacked by Palestinian PLO terrorists". This issue was already covered at. However, I note with approval that it seems to have gone, and comment on it here merely for the benefit of future editors. - Mustafaa 00:22, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This article has been turned into an anti-Islam screed by an arrogant hatemonger
This is not acceptable. If Pename attacked a Jewish page like he is doing here, his edits would be blocked and he would be forced to bring each one to Talk page for pre-approval by obstinant Jews who would allow only one or two after severely altering and NPOVing each sentence. --Alberuni 17:24, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "obstinant Jews" <--- Albundi is an anti-semetic Arab Islamist fanatic who knows less about Islam than most non-Muslims. And SHE is apparently now setting the Wikipedia standard for what is an NPOV article on Jihad. Wikipedia is cracked out; the system needs to be overhauled. --Pename 20:34, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * Goodbye and good riddance. See how far you get editing Jew article with the attitude you brought here. --Alberuni 21:41, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pename, any revisions to this article should be discussed in Talk FIRST
Your wholesale edits to this article are not appropriate as are your Talk page insults and assertions of superior knowledge. Some of your contributions are valid but many are not. The way articles are produced here is through discussion on Talk page not by bullying arrogance. Substantiate your edits and make sure they conform to the NPOV policy. Then we can all agree to insert it. No one owns this article, it is a collaborative project. If you can't work by consensus, you should leave. --Alberuni 20:22, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * This was partly my fault, because I forgot to protect the talk page and the main article. Sorry guys. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:41, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Haha! As if you discussed your edits before you made them! The most you do is throw around comments like "this is irrelevant you islamaphobe" and then go delete 60% of the article!


 * My contributions are far more NPOV than Albundi's. She's a typical Muslim apologist. Why did she delete the whole Islamist terrorism section? She didn't debate anything, she just deleted it (e.g. the sections about Salman Rushdie, van Gogh, et al). And why did she delete the Qur'an quotes on warfare section? She claims that quotes in the Qur'an about holy war don't belong in the Jihad article? I don't think that's very logical. Albundi should be banned.


 * I'm sick and tired of all these Islamic fanatics and apologists constantly trying to delete half the article, in their attempts to cover up the doings of their prophet, their religious leaders, and their fellow coreligionists. Wikipedia is best for articles about science and mathematics, where only rational and informed people are likely to edit. But when any delusional fanatic can come and wildly edit any "encylopedia" article about his or her cult or religion, then clearly the articles will never be NPOV. This is why I hereby resign from editing this page. Go wild, Albundi! Spew as much apologia onto the Jihad article as you can. Here's an idea: why don't you go delete any mention of war or violence from JIhad article, and tell everyone that that sort of thing belongs in the "Qital" article, and tell everyone that Jihad is not really "holy war," that it's really a "spiritual struggle," and that no terrorist attack in the history of the world ever had ANYTHING to do with Islam or Jihad. That also goes for the two other Islamic apologists that have been supposedly making this article "NPOV," OneGuy and Mustafaa. These people are so far gone that they don't even want anyone to write about the "72 beutiful virgins" of Islamic paradise. They claim that there is no sex in Islamic paradise, and that the "72 beutiful VIRGINS" are for "taking care of the deceased." Yeah. OKAY. I've never seen a band of Muslims less informed about their own religion than this bunch. The Wikipedia system does not work well with articles on religion -   members of the respective cult will always come and try to suppress any embaressing information, and will try their utmost to transform the entire article into dribbling apologetics. goodbye --Pename 20:27, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * You are a delusional hatemongering Islamophobe. You can't expect to promote your hate-filled garbage in a collaborative project that includes people with a modicum of reason and cultural sensitivity. --Alberuni 21:39, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Islam is not a culture, it is a [religion. Honest, rational and NPOV wikipedia contributors do not supress the truth just because it offends somebody. It's inevitably that speaking the truth about Islam is going to offend some Muslims, especially the liberal, apologetic, Westernized ones, who don't want anybody to know what Sha'riah really says. But of course Islamists like albundi are not interested in the truth; anyone who proclaims the facts about Islam is a "hatemongering Islamaphobe." As if this ridiculous new word "islamaphobe" has any meaning, depth or gravity.


 * I'll admit that I don't give a damn about "cultural sensitivity" when it comes to explaining the facts about Islam, because (for one thing) Islam isn't a culture to begin with - it's a medieval religion. But it is you (albundi) who lacks sound reasoning skills, not me. --Pename 02:49, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Sure, sure, we've seen your type before. "Islam is a cult. Muslims need to be killed and subjugated and converted to a civilized religion. They are bloodthirsty, sexist, primitive animals." Thank you Ann Coulter, Osama loves your work. Keep it up. --Alberuni 02:59, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Hehe, do you mean "struck at the neck" and "made to feel subdued", eh? Where did I hear that before..

Edits to this article should be discussed in Talk first
Some anon Islamophobe came in and tried to rewrite the whole article. Much of the garbage was deleted. If you, Viriditas, or anyone else wants to reinsert any of it, you should discuss it here first. --Alberuni 00:19, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OneGuy Introduces new rule: NO QUOTING MILITANT MUSLIMS!
OneGuy has started a campaign of deleting any quotations about JIhad made by militant Muslims, such as Dr. Abdullah Azzam (who was not even a terrorist, but merely a freedom fighter during the Afghan Jihad, i.e. a person who fought the defensive Jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan). So according to OneGuy, any Muslim who takes part in defending Muslim lands is automatically disqualified as a source of information about Islamic laws regarding Jihad, even if the person in question is holds a Master's degree in Islamic Law from the oldest and most prestigeous Islamic University in the world (University of Al-Azhar), and even if the Grand Mufti (highest religious authority) of Saudi Arabia agrees with the person in question. Moreover, in the quotes that OneGuy deleted, Dr. Azzam was merely paraphrasing the famous classical Islamic scholars such as Ibn Kathir and the legal rulings of the four madhabs. Yet we are to believe that anything Azzam says about Jihad must be false because OneGuy has called Azzam a "militant Muslim." This means that according to OneGuy only "Muslims" who completely reject armed Jihad (i.e. miliant Islam in all its forms) are legitimate sources of information about what traditional Islam really says about Jihad. So long as OneGuy and Alburundi are allowed to edit this article, it will never come anywhere close to NPOV - it will just be an extremly misleading series of Islamic apologetics, unworthy of inclusion in a resource that calls itself an "encylopedia." --Pename 03:26, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * The lies you inserted were refuted by the quotes from the Qur'an and Islamic scholars. Have you read Ibn Kathir or were you believing anything Amir Taheri said about Kathir? Even if Ibn Kathir said that, he is not the only classical scholars, as the quotes from the Qur'an and consensus among scholars (as links posted by me) proves it OneGuy 05:58, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "were you believing anything Amir Taheri said about Kathir?" <--- NOTE that this talk section has absolutely nothing to do with Aamir Taheri. This talk section is about Abdullah Yusuf Azzam, and your attempts to delete all quotes by him used to support any claims in the article. --Pename 08:40, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't care about Amir Taheri or Abdullah Yusuf Azzam. Whatever they claimed has been contradicted by the verses I posted from the Qur'an, the ultimate source on Islam. Further links to Al Azhar confirmed I was right. OneGuy 16:27, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hello, Mr. Angry Frustrated Hate-Filled Anon User
If you would present and discuss your material rationally, your edits would be more likely to be accepted in the article. If you think you should be able to write whatever you want without external editing or attempt at neutral point of view, perhaps you should start your own blog. --Alberuni 03:25, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * the last thing you are capable of contributing is a neutral point of view. what you contribute is an Islamic apologetic point of view. That sort of thing does not belong in encylopedias. Perhaps you should start your own Islamic website. --Pename 03:30, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * From your extremely hostile perspective, anyone who has any respect for Islam is an apologist. So, coming from you, that's a compliment. You attacked this article with a wholesale Islamophobic assault that was completely lifted from hate sites. Don't expect that to go unnoticed. --Alberuni 03:39, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "From your extremely hostile perspective, anyone who has any respect for Islam is an apologist. " <--- This is false. Please do not puts words in my mouth. There are many devout Muslims who have an immense amount of respect for Islam and can speak honestly about Islam without being apologetics. Also, are you suggesting that encylopedia articles are requred to "have respect for Islam" ? --Pename 08:44, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * Alberuni, it shouldn't matter whether you have respect for Islam or not, this in an encyclopedia article, not a tribute to anything. --some anon

Banu Qurayza Were not Prisoners of War?
The Jewish tribe of the Banu Qurayza was defeated in war by the Muhammad's army when the Banu Qurayza surrendered to Muhammad's army. The Banu Qurayza were then made prisoners (of war). THEN the all men in the Banu Qurayza tribe were executed because they refused to fight against Muhammad's enemies (which Muslims claim was an act of treason). The women and children of the Banu Qurayza were turned into slaves (i.e. enslaved PRISONERS of WAR). Therefore, contrary to OneGuy's idiotic claim, the Banu Qruayza were in fact POWs. --Pename 03:26, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * No, the Jewish tribe committed a crime treason by aiding the enemy at the time of war. Thus, they were executed by the order of Saud Ibn Maud, an arbiter chosen by them for the crime of treason. That' not prisoner of war. OneGuy 06:01, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * What of the crimes they committed against Muhammad earlier? Should they not have been punished for their treachery? --Alberuni 03:36, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Before Muhammad came around, Medina was a Jewish oasis town. There were three Jewish tribes, and two Arab tribes. The Bani Qurayza were one of the Jewish tribes. Muhammad left his birthplace of Mecca and arranged with the Arab tribes to proclaim himself as the sole dictator of the city of Medina. The people of Medina did not elect Muhammad, he imposed himself upon them. Certainly, not everyone agreed with him being their dictator. But dictator of Medina Muhammad did become, and soon after arriving to Medina, he expelled two of the Jewish tribes and took their land and homes. Then the Meccans attacked Medina, and the Banu Qurayza refused to fight on anyone's side.


 * This then was the crime of the tribe of the Banu Qurayza: their tribal leaders refused to fight for either the Meccans or for Muhammad. Muhammad defeated the seige of Medina, and as soon as the Meccans retreated, Muhammad launched an attack on the Banu Qurayza. The Banu Qurayza surrendered to Muhammad, and Muhammad took the captured males of the Banu Qurayza and beheaded every one of them that was older than 14 years of age. Muhammad had no legitimate right to be dictator over the Banu Qurayza and the rest of Medina, in the first place. On top of that, the Banu Qurayza had no ethical obligation to fight in the cause of their dictator. Finally, there is no justification for beheading a 15 year old child, because the leaders of his tribe decided not to fight against Muhammad's enemie. Such bloodshed is called collective punishment, and under international law it is concidered to be a crime of war. --Pename 03:47, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * Wow, your biased account is straight out of answering-islam.com. Historical innacuracy aside, even you are intelligent enough to realize that there was no international law 1500 years ago. If there was, what do you think they would have made of the Romans, the Crusades and the Aztecs? Sheesh, what a twisted perspective. --Alberuni 03:54, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * actually it was not straight of any website, it was straight out of my mind. of course there was no international law 1,400 years ago. that doesn't mean that islamic laws regarding prisoners of war do not conflict with international law. it's impossible for any medieval system of laws to be compatable with modern international law. The world has changed a lot in 1,400 years. Unfortunately Islamic law has not changed one iota in all those centuries. --Pename 04:16, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * It's a good thing the Jews and Christians are showing the Muslim world how to abide by international law in Palestine and Iraq. --Alberuni 04:38, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I thought that you said you were neither a Muslim nor an Arab. Yet here you are (a) speaking on behalf of "the Muslim world" and (b) you sound an awful lot like a Muslim Arab extremist when you blame the very broad category of "Jews and Christians" for the wars and strife in the Middle East, also (c) you are way off topic, this talk section is about whether or not the Banu Qurayza were ever  made prisoners of war by the Muslims, it is not about the current events in Palestine or Iraq. Way to show your NPOV skills, albundi. --Pename 05:13, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * I never discussed my background with you. The quote above does not purport to speak for the Muslim world. I referred to Christians and Jews to turn your critique of Islam law and international law around and show you the hypocrisy of it. NPOV does not have anything to do with Talk pages. It has to do with the article. That's why you are permitted to express Islamophobia here but not as objective fact in the article. But you are right the whole section has gone off-topic. There's no point engaging in long theological debates about general issues. You obviously will only agree with other Islamophobes. If you want to bring in specific sections of text for the article, I suggest bringing in a paragraph or section at a time and we can review it, edit and re-edit before inserting it in the article. --Alberuni 05:22, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "There's no point engaging in long theological debates about general issues." <--- You are again dragging this discussion offtopic. This talk section is neither a theological debate nor does it concern general issues. It only concerns a very simple and specific question, namely, where the Banu Qurayza prisoners of war before the tribe was massacred by Muhammad. --Pename

Here is a hadith that contradicts the lie he posted from answering Islam

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 280: Narrated Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri: When the tribe of Bani Quraiza was ready to accept Sad's judgment, Allah's Apostle sent for Sad who was near to him. Sad came, riding a donkey and when he came near, Allah's Apostle said (to the Ansar), "Stand up for your leader." Then Sad came and sat beside Allah's Apostle who said to him. "These people are ready to accept your judgment." Sad said, "I give the judgment that their warriors should be killed and their children and women should be taken as prisoners." The Prophet then remarked, "O Sad! You have judged amongst them with (or similar to) the judgment of the King Allah."

Notice the judgement on Bani Quraiza was made by Sad (not Muhammad). Banu Quraiza (who were living in Medina) had agreed to defend the city from foreign attacks, but instead they aided the enemy at the time of war. Thus, they were rightly ordered to be killed by an arbiter chosen by them. This has nothing to do with POW OneGuy 06:08, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * 1. I did not post anything from Answering Islam.
 * 2. "Notice the judgement on Bani Quraiza was made by Sad (not Muhammad)." <-- the hadith explains that Muhammad told Sad to decide what to do, Sad told Muhammad that his decision was too kill all 800 or so able bodied male prisoners of war of the Banu Qurayza tribe, and then Muhammad approved of Sad's decision by announcing that Sad's decision was the same as King Allah's decision. Therefore Muslims believe that it was not merely Sad's decision, but Allah's decision.
 * 3. What exactly does this hadith contradict? How does it prove that the Bani Qurayza were not prisoners of war, as you claimed? The topic of this talk section is whether or not the Bani Qurayza were prisoners of war. It has nothing to do with Answering-Islam.org. --Pename 08:37, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * No, the hadith affirms that it was the decision by Sad. Qurayza were not executed because they were POWs. They lived in Medina. They were executed rightly for committing treason during the time of war that would have completely wiped out the Muslims. This has nothing to do with POWs. OneGuy 16:23, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "Qurayza were not executed because they were POWs." <--- nobody is saying that the Banu Qurayza were massacred BECAUSE they were POWs. I am merely asserting the historical fact that the Banu Qurayza were massacred WHILE they were POWs. When you deleted the paragraphs about the Banu Qurayza (in the Prisoners of War section) your justification for this was as follows (from the main article edit history):


 * 06:55, Nov 21, 2004 OneGuy (Banu Quriza were not POW .. they were killed for the crimes of trerason by the order of Saud ibn Muad -- not Muhammad)


 * Thus the crux of your argument was that the Banu Qurayza were not prisoners of war. But when you said "Qurayza were not executed because they were POWs" (above) you implicitly admitted that the Banu Qurayza WERE prisoners of war. You are contradictiong the crux of your own argument for deleting any mention of the Banu Qurayza from the "Prisoners of War" section. --Pename 01:53, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * Dude, The People Of Banu Qurazya Werent Made POW'S ,They Were Executed Before That ....

saad.ghauri 23 Nov 2004


 * Sorry, but you are incorrect. According to the Sira, the Banu Qurayza surrendered after being besieged by Muhammad's army. They were then taken prisoner. The women and children were seperate from the able bodies men and boys 14 yrs of age or older. The males were then executed, while the women and children were enslaved and distributed like properly amongst Muhammad and his army as war booty. Therefore, the Banu Qurayza were made prisoners (of war) before they were executed, not the other way around. It is not possible to systematically execute every able bodied male of an entire tribe - about 800 men - without first imprisoning them. IN fact, the Sira explains that the executing process went on for an entire day, and huge trenches were dug as mass graves for the executed POWs. I'm sorry to tell you, but your statement is contrary to logical reasoning as well as historical facts. -- Pename

Alburundi's latest lie: executing prisoners of war forbidden by the QUr'an!
Instead of addressing any of the evidence in the article, Alburundi has deleted the original Prisoner's of War section and replaced it with some misleading quotes from the Qur'an. She does not allow anyone else to make any edits, and insists that every edit be first discussed in the Talk Page. Yet she herself refuses to discuss any of the edits, she refuses to debate or debunk the material that she deletes from the article. The central question is ARE MUSLIMS ALLOWED TO KILL PRISONERS OF WAR? The unequivocal answer is no. Whether or not they encouraged to free prisoners is a seperate issue. The real question is what is allowed and what is prohibited in Islam. Killing prisoners is absolutely allowed. Scores of Islamic scholars have spoken up about this, after all the beheadings in Iraq, and they have made it very clear that executing prisoners of war is perfectly acceptable under Islamic law. But of course being the lying apologists that albundi and oneguy are, they deleted this fact from the article without any debate or justification, as usual. --Pename 03:26, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * Sigh. Please provide your sources for this information. I must caution you that the highly immoderate language you are using on this page is causing unnecessary controversy and is not condusive to rational discussion of highly emotive and controversial topics! Perhaps you could also read how to write with a Neutral point of view? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:44, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Is that the wayyou discuss things with your co-workers? What is your source for the claims you are making? Could you provide a reference? I have these sources with numerous citations to Qur'an and hadith.   --Alberuni 03:34, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "What is your source for the claims you are making?" <--- the source of my claims is in the section titled "Execution of Prisoners of War" (the contents of which you keep deleting and replacing with your lies). Note that you are deleting sections with information that is completely referenced, and you are deleting said sections without any discussion. And yet you are the one running around telling everyone that everything you say is NPOV and that they must first discuss with you any edit they wish to make. --Pename 03:51, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * It's not just me, edits on controversial subjects are achieved through consensus. I've learned this Wikipedia process by working with the hardest headed crowd you can imagine. If you want to continue editing the article, you should bring the section here so it can be discussed. There's no rush. You don't get to insert anything you think is accurate and neutral until it has been reviewed and accepted. Sorry, if you think you are better than everyone else, you should find another place to ply your wares. --Alberuni 04:12, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * update: there are now three (3) sources in the POW section (two non-Muslim sources and one Muslim) confirming that Muslims are allowed to behead prisoners of war. --Pename 04:02, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * Amir Taheri? What is the exact quote you want to insert? Bring specifics, not vague claims. --Alberuni 04:12, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Amir Taheri is not a scholar of any kind. His claims are contradicted by other refernces posted in the section, including links to Al Ahzar statement OneGuy 05:44, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Notice that Pename linked to hate site muhammadanism.org from prisoners of war section, and he removed the quotes from the Qur'an and Al Azhar statement. This is like linking to neo-Zazi sites from Talmud page. What a joker. The guy has now completly lost his credibilty. OneGuy 06:21, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The link to this particular website has been deleted. Also statements made by Al Azhar have been put back. But please note for future reference that arguing against the source is a logical fallacy known as argumentem ad hominem. --Pename 08:27, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Chechen Sex Slaves!
The most recent attempt at undocumented POV editing by the hatemonger Pename. --Alberuni 04:17, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. Sources are most definitely need for these claims. I'm considering filing an RFC on this page, some of the things I'm seeing on the page are quite simply ridiculous! - Ta bu shi da yu 05:54, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I've reworded this part of the article, and added many sources. --Pename 07:17, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Attempting to End the Reversion War
I have tried to come to a comprimise with Alberundi's edits and the article before Alberundi's edits. It would help to scale down the revert war if everyone would explain their objections and edits in the talk section before editing the article.


 * A worthy course of action. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:03, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Excerpts from the Qur'an on warfare
Alberuni keeps deleting the Qur'an quotes about war. She claims that they belong in an article titled "Qital" and not in the Jihad article. "Qital" is the Arabic word of war, and one of the meanings of Jihad is "war." Therefore, the Qur'an quotes on warfare belong in the Jihad section.

Alberundi: since you disagree with this, please discuss your point of view in this talk section before you go and delete it the Qur'an quote section again.


 * Qital is not the same as Jihad, that's why they are two different words. --Alberuni 15:44, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I already acknowledged that they are two different words. TO REPEAT: "Qital" is the Arabic word of war, and one of the meanings of Jihad is "war." Therefore, the Qur'an quotes on warfare belong in the Jihad section. --Pename 22:41, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Offensive Jihad as a Method for the Propagation of Islam
Alberundi is also quietly deleting tthe section called "Offensive Jihad as a Method for the Propagation of Islam". She has yet to explain why she is deleting this section from the article. Alberundi, please follow your own advice and DISCUSS YOUR EDITS IN THE TALK PAGE BEFORE DELETING SECTIONS OF THE ARTICLE

(NOTE: i changed this section; all mention of apostacy of "the apostate tribes" has been removed)

---Pename 07:10, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * The edits must be discussed in Talk before being entered intio the article, not vice versa. That is standard Wikipedia policy for controversial articles. I suggested that you bring them here but you keep inserting them into the article without discussion. That's not acceptable. --Alberuni 15:44, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "The edits must be discussed in Talk before being entered intio the article" <-- If you are referring to my note "i changed this section; all mention of apostacy of "the apostate tribes" has been removed" then the note itself is proof that I started discussion about the edit in Talk and THEN made the edit. Anyway, that is completely off-topic. This talk section is not about my edits, it is about YOUR edits. Specifically, this talk section is about YOUR attempts this two important sections from the article, WTIHOUT EVEN MENTIONING YOUR EDITS IN THE TALK PAGE. This talk section was initiated by me to give you a chance to explain to us why you keep deleting these sections. So far you have not made any mention of your attempts to delete the "Offensive Jihad as a Method for the Propagation of Islam"  section. You have also been deliberately neglecting the debate about your deletion of the  "Excerpts from the Qur'an on warfare" section (the debate I'm referring to is directly above, in the appropriate subsection of this talk section). --Pename 00:56, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

More twisting from Pename
He inserted this verse in the article:


 * "It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives), but Allah desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allah is All-Mighty, All-Wise. Were it not a previous ordainment from Allah, a severe torment would have touched you for what you took." (8:67-68)

Now, where did get this translation. None of the other official online translations use the phrase "made a great slaughter" The answer: he got this from this site: http://users.mo-net.com/mcruzan/pows_01.htm

However, if you read the article, the guy who wrote the article actually is claiming that the verse refers to freeing the prisoners without ransom! In other words, Pename used this translation (not used in any other place) but took that part off.

It should be very clear by now that this guy, Pename, has no credibility and honesty. He is only interested in inserting twisted facts where ever he finds them OneGuy 17:05, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "where did get this translation. None of the other official online translations use the phrase "made a great slaughter" <--- there's no such thing as "official translation" of the qur'an, but in any case the words "made slaughter in the land" appear i Pickthal's world famous translation which is available online:
 * PICKTHAL: It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise. (8:67) --Pename 21:43, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * Doesn't change the fact that you took the translation from that page. Pickthal doesn't have "(and free them with ransom)" in parenthesis. That page does. Everything what I wrote above stands. You took the verse from that page and used it to imply something completely opposite to what the author was saying OneGuy 00:29, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nor does Pickthal have "made a great slaughter". - Mustafaa 00:30, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ugh
Well, now that so much work has been done on this since I put in my request, it's going to be virtually impossible to untangle all of the copyvios, isn't it? RickK 21:29, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * No. Point out the copyvio's, point out the copyvio sources and we'll remove accordingly. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:51, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * RickK: The first time around, you only idenfified ONE concrete example of a copyright violation ("Verdict on the Qur'an"), which (granted) was a direct plagerism inserted by an anon. That plagerism was deleted before you even pointed it out. When you were repeatedly asked, in the talk section titled, where you thought the copyright violations occured (in so much other content that you deleted), you simply left the discussion without explaining yourself.
 * Now here you are AGAIN making vauge accusations of copyright violations without explaining WHERE AND WHEN the alleged copyright violations occured. Please keep such accusations to yourself until you are able to specify exactly where the copyright violations are and where they have been copied from. Next time you decide to delete content from the article on the basis of copyvios, please indicate in the talk section EACH paragaph and sentence you are deleting and explain specifically why you believe that those sentences are copyright violations. --Pename 21:53, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Ta bu shi da yu: (What part of "take to talk" didn't you understand? rv (again))
Ta bu shi da yu, Alburundi's made many many edits yesterday, over my last edit, and WITHOUT ANY TALK. I have incorporated Alburundi's edits into the version of the article which INCLUDES the sections that were removed WITHOUT ANY TALK. For example, the titled "Offensive Jihad as a method of propogation of Islam," the numerous paragraphs about slavery and POWs, the section titled "Quotations from the Qur'an about warfare,", as well as the entire discussion regarding assasinations against critics of Islam (e.g. Asma bint Marwan, Theo van Gogh, et al), and others sections, have been ALL deleted by Alburundi WITHOUT ANY DISCUSSION WHATSOEVER'. The titles of subsections have been changed by her without any debate, for example "Islamist terrorism" was changed to "Militant Islamist martyrdom operations," once again WITHOUT ANY TALK. You (Ta bu shi da yu) seem to be okay with this, you don't seem to object to the fact that all this editing by Alburundi took place over the past 24 hours without any talk. And yet when anyone tries to put back the sections that were deleted without talk, you insist that we must first talk about redoing the unjusfitied edits that Alburundi made without first discussing them! This is an unfair double standard. Many objective readers agree that my version is more accurate and comprehensive. I also included all of Alburindi's additions to the article, and changed much of it to agree with her arguments.

I am reverting the article to the edit that incorporate Alburundi's/OneGuy's corrections and contributions to the factual information of the article with the sections that Alburundi deleted without any discussion. The purpose of this is try to to PUT AN END OF THE REVERT WAR. I therefore propose that after this edit, Alburundi et all should DEBATE why they want to rename or delete whole sections of the article before they do so! --Pename 22:24, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * "Many objective readers" - which readers?! "I am reverting the article...to PUT AN END TO THE REVERT WAR" - excuse me? Please, read NPOV before reverting. I'm filing an RFC on this page. Your edits are ridiculously POV, and you have an axe to grind. I also notice you seem to have taken advantage of a locked talk page (my mistake for not locking the main article page) to incorporate a great many POV edits. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:43, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * ""Many objective readers" - which readers?! "<--- here:


 * 16:10, Nov 22, 2004 Cphka (rv. back to Penames's version. No reason to removed a lot of useful content.)


 * 18:50, Nov 21, 2004 Viriditas m (Reverted changes by Alberuni to last version by Mellum. Please refrain from deceptive edit summaries. You removed a lot of useful content for no reason. Bring your objections to Talk.)


 * 15:59, Nov 21, 2004 Stereotek (rv. [Alburundi's edit] to last (and IMHO better) version [i.e. Pename's last edit])


 * That's 3 readers. They are objective in the sense that they have not been previously involved in editing this article. Maybe you should pay more attention to what goes on here, "Ta bu shi da yu" --Pename


 * I have been "Pename". I am also an objective author, in the fact that I have not been previously involved in editing this article (except for a few copyedits). I have noticed your edits have not been writing from the enemies point of view, something we suggest on NPOV. Perhaps you would like to read this document. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:26, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "I have noticed your edits have not been writing from the enemies point of view" <--- PLEASE BE SPECIFIC IN YOUR ACCUSATIONS AGAINST ME. If you dispute a certain aspect of the article, then start a new talk section about it, and discuss your objections in a coherent, complete and specific manner. --Pename 00:03, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * ""I am reverting the article...to PUT AN END TO THE REVERT WAR" - excuse me? Please, read NPOV before reverting." <--- please do not take my words out of context. This is no way to address the issue that I have raised. Here is what I said:


 * "I am reverting the article to the edit that incorporate Alburundi's/OneGuy's corrections and contributions to the factual information of the article with the sections that Alburundi deleted without any discussion. The purpose of this is try to to PUT AN END OF THE REVERT WAR. "


 * Did you discuss those edits on the talk page? - Ta bu shi da yu 23:26, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * First and MOST IMPORTANTLY, I started the this talk section BEFORE I made the latest reversion and said "I am reverting the article...to PUT AN END TO THE REVERT WAR." I started this talk section ABOUT the edits, and THEN made the edits. But even before today, I have been trying to make the exact same edits, and have started multiple talk sections at the following times and places:
 * On 22 Nov 2004 early in the day (UTC) I started the talk section.
 * At the same time, started the talk section titled
 * As anyone can see, I have done my utmost to engage in debate over this most recent major edit as well as any and every past edit made to the article. If you have not noticed, the majority of recent talking in the talk sections is done by me - almost half of the talk sections in this page were initiated by me. --Pename 00:03, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * "Your edits are ridiculously POV" <--- if you disagree with any part of the article, then PLEASE DISCUSS YOUR SPECIFIC DISAGREEMENTS IN THE TALK PAGE.


 * Your sources leave something to be desired. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:26, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "Your sources leave something to be desired" <--- PLEASE BE SPECIFIC. If you want to dispute a particular source, then start a talk section about it, and explain which sources are not legitimate and why. Also please note very carefully that arguing against the source itself is a logical fallacy called argumentum ad hominem; you must argue against the CONTENTS of the source. --Pename 00:03, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * "you have an axe to grind." <--- please refrain from Personal attacks.


 * Not a personal attack. It's a general comment, based on the edits you've been doing on this article. Sorry you took it this way. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:26, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Saying that I "have an axe to grind" it is categorically a personal attack. According to the WIkipedia article regarding the policy against Personal Attacks, "Negative personal comments" constitute a personal attack. By suggesting that "I have an axe to grind" you are using an idiom to insinuate negatively about my personal motivations for editing this Wikipedia article. This is clearly a Personal Attack, not a "general comment." Therefore I repeate: refrain from personal attacks. --Pename 00:03, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * "I also notice you seem to have taken advantage of a locked talk page (my mistake for not locking the main article page) to incorporate a great many POV edits." <--- I don't know what you are talking about. I don't understand what page has been locked, nor do I understand why you are locking the talk page and the main article page. And again, if you believe that any part of the article is POV, then DISCUSS IT BEFORE DELETING IT!
 * --Pename 23:00, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, I might have been unfair to you about this point. But while I had locked the page you made a vast amount of edits during that time. Again, I take responsibility for this as I should have locked the main article. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:26, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I still have no idea what you're talking about. Do you have a link that explains what a locked page is? --Pename 00:03, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, "terrorism" is a POV term in this article, I don't blame Alberuni for changing this to "martydom operations" ... - Ta bu shi da yu 22:45, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC) [ This discussion is off-topic and has therefore been moved to its own talk section: ]


 * I notice all your sources are from either extremist websites or extremely POV sources. All so far have been from websites. I could do the same thing, and you wouldn't like it one little bit. Learn to pick your sources better! - Ta bu shi da yu 22:45, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "all your sources are from either extremist websites or extremely POV sources." <--- PLEASE BE SPECIFIC. If you want to dispute a particular source, then start a talk section about it, and explain which sources are not legitimate and why. Also please note very carefully that arguing against the source itself is a logical fallacy called argumentum ad hominem; you must argue against the CONTENTS of the source.
 * --Pename 23:00, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, let me double-check my facts and get back to you. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:36, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * When do you get back to me, I recommend that you start a new talk section about disputed sources, as opposed to carrying out multiple side conversations in this particular talk section. --Pename 00:03, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Debate over replacing "Terrorism" with "Martyrdom Operation"
The subsection title "Islamist terrorism" (now changed to "Terrorism by Islamist Extremists") was changed to "Militant Islamist martyrdom operations" by Alburundi without any discussion. Therefore this talk section has been initiated, so that this issue can be debated and hopefully decided upon. --Pename


 * "terrorism" is a POV term in this article, I don't blame Alberuni for changing this to "martydom operations". - Ta bu shi da yu 22:45, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Here is what the article says:
 * "In the 20th century, the spectre of terrorism carried out by extremist fundamentalist Muslims began to haunt the Muslim world ... The vast majority of Muslims reject the wanton killing of innocent civilians. Only a fringe element of extremists are responsible for terrorist incidents"
 * How exactly is this POV? Are you suggesting that we are not allowed to talk about terrorst acts carried out in the name of Jihad in an article about Jihad? --Pename


 * Spectre of terrorism is a POV term. Firstly, there is no need for the word "spectre". Don't use emotive adjectives in articles. "haunt the Muslim world" is your point of view. This can be rephrased, it seems like you are trying to make a point. The other examples are sweeping statements, don't appear to be qualified. We discourage sentences like this on Wikipedia. Also, with regards to terrorism, I'm not saying don't talk about terrorism, however you need to balance your article with reasons why terrorism happens. Incidently, if you read carefully I was talking about, it was the title that refered to Terrorism that was changed to martyrdom operations. - Ta bu shi da yu


 * * "Spectre of terrorism'' is a POV term. " <--- okay this has now been reworded.
 * * "Also, with regards to terrorism, I'm not saying don't talk about terrorism" <--- this seems to contradict your earlier statement (above) that  " "terrorism" is a POV term in this article, I don't blame Alberuni for changing this to "martydom operations".
 * * "Incidently, if you read carefully I was talking about, it was the title that refered to Terrorism that was changed to martyrdom operations. "<--- no, you said " "terrorism" is a POV term in this article --Pename 01:19, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Then I didn't make myself clear. I was referring to the only section I can see in the edit history that refers to "martrydom operations", which was a section title. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:42, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Problem with Islamophobes
They use the most militant interpretions of the Qur'an and hadith and the most extreme definitions to imply that this is the meaning of Islam. It is akin to taking Jerry Falwell, Franklin Graham and the abortion clinic bombers to claim that they represent the true meaning of Christianity as practiced by a billion+ Christians in the world. It is false, malicious, twisted and POV as can be. Even the sections that have been allowed to remain (temporarily) are completely false and twisted. The depiction of Jihad as an offensive campaign of violence to propagate the faith is straight out of Daniel Pipes propaganda. There are many sources that interpret jihad as a personal struggle and an obligation to defend Islam against aggression. There are militant Islamists like Shaikh Abdullah Azzam, Sayyid Qutb and al-Qaida that interpret defense of Islam in a militant way. These interpretations are not the interpretations of most Muslims. If thee extremsits views are presented they should be presented in context, with attribution, and the the mainstream interpretation of Jihad should be more prominent. The minority extremist views are being presented prominently as the "true" meaning of Jihad because it serves the POV purposes of the obsessively hostile Islamophobic editor. I will come back and work with reasonable editors to fix this article after the attempted hatchet job is concluded. --Alberuni 02:00, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Far and away the most mainstream interpretation of jihad is as a defensive campaign against attackers. Every proclamation of the outer jihad that I'm aware of this century has been accompanied by a claim (often correct) that the target was attacking and/or occupying the mujahidin's country - even the most extremist, such as al-Qaeda's. Alberuni, don't give up! (Though I can't blame you.) Your impressive editing energy is better spent fixing a true piece of junk like the article Peniel is pushing than dissipated on a million Israeli-Palestinian conflict-related edit wars. - Mustafaa 02:20, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "Every proclamation of the outer jihad that I'm aware of this century has been accompanied by a claim (often correct) that the target was attacking and/or occupying the mujahidin's country " <--- that's very true. But the article already implicitly includes this information. The section on "Political military authority" clearly states that the only the ruling Caliph can declare an offensive Jihad; no one else in the world has the right to declare an offensive Jihad, accoridng to shar'iah. And, as the article explains, the Caliphate was abolished by Ataturk in 1924. SO it's obvious that offensive Jihad is a relic of the past, in the absense of any Islamic empire, Caliphate, or Caliph. The article also explains that NO ONE needs to declare defensive Jihad in order for it to become effective - as soon as an infidel enemy attacks, defensive Jihad goes into effect. The article explains al of this. So what is your complaint? I think the real issue here is that you don't want anyone to know that Islam has juristic support for imperialism; you to keep the whole existance of offensive jihad a secret, and the supposed justification for this is that no one in recent times has declared offensive jihad. --Pename 03:44, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Interesting (and original) theory about why there have been no self-described offensive jihads lately, but it won't hold much water. Usman dan Fodio doesn't seem to have been fighting in self-defense - did he have authorization from any of the several self-described "Caliphs" of the time? I suspect the "real issue" is the opposite: that you don't want anyone to know that the concept of "offensive jihad" is quite simply not believed in by most Muslims. - Mustafaa 17:59, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "the concept of "offensive jihad" is quite simply not believed in by most Muslims." <--- this is a completely unsubstantiated claim. in the absense of any evidence whatosever, it's total bullshit. in any case, I never made claims about whether or not "most Muslims" believe in "offensive Jihad" - i merely stated the objective and undeniable fact that "offensive jihad" (i.e. aggressive holy wars of conquest) are sanctioned and commanded by Islamic law, particularly by the juristic tradition of the four madhabs, which forms the basis of Sunni Islamic law, on the basis of evidence from the Sira, the hadiths, and the Qur'an that Muhammad himself engaged in offensive jihad. The vast majority of the world's Muslims are Sunnis, and the majority of them identify with one the four madhabs - whole countries officially identify with one of the four madhabs. Yet here you are claiming that "most Musilms" do not "believe in" offensive jihad, without any evidence to support your claim, and without any rebuttal of the pre-existing evidence that contradicts your claim. You're nothing more than an Islamist propogandist who is trying to whitewash Islam for non-Muslim Western audiences. It's despicable.   --Pename 03:07, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Islamophobia sounds a lot like sluggishly progressing schizophrenia to me..

Disputed sources
I'll add to this, as others have expressed concerns please add your comments here. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:44, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Who is Abudllah Yusuf Azzam? Perhaps Pename could make an article about him? How do I know where he stands on issues? How do I know that he represents all Muslims (you appear to me to make out that all Muslims beleive what this man says), can you create an article on him?
 * Should be Abdullah Yusuf Azzam. Just another typo by the unilateral editor..


 * The Encylopedia of the Orient - what is this? Why should I beleive its contents are accurate as an outside editor? How do I know it is an authoritative source? Who publishes it? Is this widely consulted by Muslims in regards to religious material?


 * Clearly an Orientalist source, not an Islamic source, but relevant text could be quoted with attribution, in my opinion. --Alberuni 03:21, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Pename has cited http://www.religioscope.com/info/doc/jihad/azzam_defence_1_table.htm and also http://www.religioscope.com/info/doc/jihad/azzam_defence_3_chap1.htm, what is this document, what is its wider context, why do people see it as important, who sees it as important?


 * Azzam is widely viewed as the father of modern Islamism. He was an extremist and his views have been influential to the militant movement. There is no such thing as "Orthodox" Islam. That's another Orientalist misconception, applying terms from Christian and Jewish sects and hierarchies on Islam. Like the comparisons between Jihad and the terms Pename mixes together incorrectly: "international humanitarian" "law of war". If Anti-Christians were to apply Pename's method to Christian concepts, they could extract the Bible's brutal passages about stoning adulterers, for instance, and claim that Christianity is a primitive and barbaric religion that violates human rights and has no place in the modern world. The guy is a bad joke. --Alberuni 03:21, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * The point here is about practice. Sure, nobody knows if the Qur'an allows suicide bombing, but we sure have a lot of Islamic clerics saying it does.. and that's what counts.

More questions for Pename!
To Muslims, a person who dies while fighting Jihad is a shahid (martyr) and is assured a place in Janna (Paradise) where they will have 72 virgins, rivers of wine and fresh fruit called the Houris.


 * Where does it say this?! Who assures this? Who beleives this &mdash; do all Muslims beleive this, or are they only specific groups? Do some Muslims oppose this view? Is this the only reason a Muslim is willing to be a martyr, or are there other significant cultural or social pressures that compells a Muslim to die while performing Jihad?
 * The guys who blow themselves up. Follow the news. ;) However, I agree, 'some' or 'many' would be better.

If non-combatant Muslims perish in such attacks, they are also considered shahid and thus have also secured a place in paradise.


 * What is your source? Do all Muslims beleive this?

Hence, the only true victims are the kaffir, or unbelievers. The basis of the concept of shahid can be traced back to the words of Muhammad prior to the battle of Badr where he stated:


 * "I swear by the One in whose hand Muhammad's soul is, any man who fights them today and is killed while he is patient in the ordeal and seeks the pleasure of Allah, going forward and not backing off, Allah will enter him into Paradise."


 * Where is your source for this information? I see no external citation here! How do I know this isn't original research? What are you quoting from?! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:54, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Liberal Muslims - progressives who seek break away from the traditional imperial ideology in Islam - dispute the neccessity and obligation of the offensive Jihad; they say that offensive was practiced only to preserve Islam from destruction, and that the concept is now obsolete because freedom of religious practice is present in most of the world.


 * Who are Liberal Muslims? I think I've asked this already on this talk page, to either no response or no clarification from anyone. Can we define who they are?

Their more traditional ideological opponents question whether the Muslims established the second-largest empire in the history of the world, through war and conquest, only to preserve Islam from destruction.


 * Which opponents? (without knowing who a "Liberal Muslim" is, its a bit hard to say who their "traditional ideological opponents" are now, doesn't it?

As Azzam's fatwa showed, such orthodox Muslims believe that it is Islam's goal to establish an ever-expanding theocratic empire. Such Muslims wish to return to the days when a single Islamic Empire was ruled by a single Caliph. Islamists see this as a pious and important ambition, and they find justification for their imperialist beliefs in the mainstream Islamic legal tradition of the four Madhabs, which was codified in the early centuries of the budding Islamic empire. The Muslim masses continue to see their imperial past, such as when Islamic armies conquered Spain, marched half way into France, laid siege to Vienna, and invaded large portions of Eastern Europe, as blessed and legitimate occurrences of jihad.


 * Isn't this just your POV and your interpretation of events? Does this apply to all Muslim "masses", or are you misrepresenting a people group here.

Ta bu shi da yu 03:06, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Please do not appeal to the fallacy of nothing but objections. You may want to read the article on the Hadith, as that is where the concept of the shahid is developed.   --Viriditas 03:26, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I was under the impression we were trying to make this article objective. Are you implying that I shouldn't be asking for these questions to be clarified? (that "fallacy" is not even on Wikipedia - sheesh) Also, if the information is needed for me to understand this article then I would suggest this article needs a lot of work! Besides this, it is the contributor who must justify his edits (which Pename seems willing to do), it is not up to me to justify my questioning! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:35, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * How are my comments in any way suggesting that you are not making the article objective? How have I implied that questions shouldn't be asked? Are you saying that if something is not on Wikipedia, it isn't true or relevant?  Questioning is good, but appealing to nothing but objections is not.  There is a difference. --Viriditas 03:56, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * P.S. I beleive that you were implying this when you asked me to stop appealing to the fallacy of nothing but objections. You implied that I was just asking a barrage of questions to make Pename be quiet. What else would you be implying? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:39, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * And where was I saying that? What I'm asking for is clarifications that would make this article significantly more NPOV. You seemed to be implying that I'm only making objections for the sake of it, which I think is misrepresenting me. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:12, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * In the context of the original discussion, yes, you appeared to be making objections for the sake of doing so. As for clarifications, all that is needed is for Pename to cite sources.  If he refuses, then there is no reason to discuss or include his content. --Viriditas
 * Then you have assumed something that did not happen. I am asking because I beleive we need to clarify this article. I think you should read assume good faith. My questions stand. I would also like to have the sources clarified in what they mean, why they are useful to describe the article and the context in which they are written. I strongly disagree with you that the sources should just stand by themselves: I could also include lots of sources that would not be relevant or reliable and that anyone would hesitate to include! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:48, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * The sources are relevant to clarification.  I never said the sources stand by themselves, so please stop putting words in my mouth.  I said, all that is needed is for Pename to cite his sources.  Once he has done that, clarification becomes possible for everyone, not just you.  Being able to read the source documents helps answer your questions as to why Pename's claims are useful or not.  Thank you for your suggestion regarding the assumption of good faith.  Although I feel that I have done just that, I think I will  read it again just to make sure I understand it.  In turn, I suggest you read please do not bite the newcomers.  Pename has been here for less than three days, and as such he is considered a new contributor.  I see by your harsh comments on his user page that you may need to review this basic policy.  He (or she) needs to be made to feel welcome, and I feel that you have failed to do that. --Viriditas 06:59, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * What harsh comments?! Please substantiate your claims! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:50, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Please assume good faith on User:Ta bu shi da yu's part. He has questions that need answering. Perhaps you can help your Pename. The Wikipedia article hadith contains nothing about shahid and neither does the link you provided. If you can't be helpful here, I'm sureUser:Jayjg can use you. --Alberuni 03:39, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * The link contains quite a lot, actually. I suggest you read it.  And your attempt to engage in a personal attack is noted.  I suggest you read your talk page, too. --Viriditas 03:57, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Maybe I used the link incorrectly but all I got was a blank page and when I used the search engine, I could find nothing about shahid. --Alberuni 04:13, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I apologize for my mistake. Go here  and search for "martyr".  Then, compare it to the arabic link at the bottom of the page.  Does it use the word, shahid or shuhada, in place of martyr? --Viriditas 04:24, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Works now, thanks, but gives limited search results. The collections are good, like the one for Jihad but for genera search, I think this one is more comprehensive.  --Alberuni 04:48, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Alberuni gets it. He's correct &mdash; I am asking for clarification on the article, in fact I would ask either himself or OneGuy the same questions if he added the sort of material that Pename added to this article. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:52, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Alberuni gets what? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  Appealing to nothing but objections does not address the questions of authenticity.  --Viriditas 03:56, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I can't beleive I'm having this conversation, but allow me to spell it out to you: if we are trying to come up with an accurate article, from a neutral point of view, then we must clarify certain statements, consider the sources we use, correct factual errors, modify or remove obvious points of view and generally make the article as thorough and unbiased as we can. This is the reason that I'm asking the questions! You then came out with a "fallacy of nothing but objections" (objections? maybe, but I like to think of these as clarifications) which I've never heard of before (and which you linked to - I notice there is no such Wikipedia article!) and can't understand why you bothered to raise on this talk page. As Alberuni says, however, I would ask you to assume good faith in my questions. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:08, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I take offense at your tone, so you might want to read your comments to see how they sound to other users. Thank you for your proposal, but I do not need you to "spell" anything out for me, nor is it required.  I have already asked Pename to cite sources.  I'm sorry that you've never heard of the fallacy of nothing but objections before.  I have only assumed good faith, which is why I responded to your objections to Pename in the first place.  There is a big difference between objecting to evidence and asking someone to cite their sources, which I have done. --Viriditas 04:17, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, as did I take offense to your tone when you made a link to a non-existent article and appeared to make the assumption that I was only making objections! Perhaps if you had addressed most of my objections (sigh - I'm getting tired... as I said, I mean clarifications and questions) &mdash; you addressed one of them, which I am grateful for you doing &mdash; then I might not have taken offense quite so easily. Your point on my tone is taken, however, and I will modify my talk in discussions accordingly. I appreciate your advice. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:02, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Further:

Whether or not "conversion by the sword" was systematically carried out, it is known that the jizyah (a tax laid exclusively on non-Muslims whose proceeds go to the government) created a kind of economic and social apartheid in which non-Muslims were economically and socially punished by the state for not converting to Islam. Non-Muslims paid jizya while Muslims, under the empire, paid a taxed called the zakat (a so-called "charity tax" which all Muslims pay even today, but instead of paying to the state they now pay zakat to charities of their choice). The zakat is a 2.5% tax, while the jizyah was about a 10% income tax; as explained in the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on jizyah, "many converted to Islam in order to escape the tax." Non-Muslims were also usually denied entry to high-ranking military and civil service positions, although there were historical exceptions such as the Mughal Empire where non-Muslims did reach high-ranking positions.


 * What exactly does this have to do with Jihad? (I've asked this in the talk page, and noone ever responded so don't tell me that I haven't added a section asking for clarifications!) - Ta bu shi da yu 03:50, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Jizya? Well, it occurs after a successful jihad - once the population has been conquered, they're made to pay jizya (unless they convert to Islam). Also, since it both pays good money and supplies new converts, it's obviously been an important motive for committing jihad. -- anon


 * "Ta bu shi da yu" knew this before he even started this section. The question of what jiyza has to do was not only obvious from the article section which he sought to edit out, but it had also been discussed numerous times in the talk page, before "Ta bu shi da yu" began asking his often ignorant questions. And even after directly explaining to him what it has to do with Jihad, he continued to ask what it has to do with Jihad, as you can see above. Either he truly cannot comprehend simple facts in simple language, or (more likely) he is dishonestly pretending that he doesn't understand that jizya "both pays good money and supplies new converts, it's obviously been an important motive for committing jihad," as you pointed out. This has been explained to "Ta bu shi da yu" numerous times, but he will probably still continue to ask his perennial idiotic question: "What exactly does this information about jizya have to do with Jihad?" He keeps asking this question because it is a tactic for flooding the discussion page with false objections, in order to create the illusion that there was something wrong with the article, and so it was okay for him and the Islamist cabal to delete over half of it without any true justification. -- Pename


 * The extreme levels of ignorance and bias exhibited by the Alberuni, OneGuy, Ta bu shi da yu, RickK, and Mustafaa is too much for one person (me) to handle. It's simply too time consuming, and Wikipedia needs a system of expert review before Wikipedia can have an article about Jihad that is not dominated by clowns like OneGuy, Alberuni and Mustafaa who only excel in presenting a completely biased and distorted view of Islam, rife with ommisions and out-right lies. Here are some of the most ridiculous things that these clowns have said:


 * In defiance of simple logic, OneGuy claims that Islamic civilization has no history of imperialism yet admits that Islamic civilization has a 1,300 year history of Islamic empires in


 * That's a complete distortion of what I said. You have zero credibility in my eyes now. I never said that "Islamic civilization has no history of imperialism." What I said what that not all 1300 years of complex history can be called "imperialism." OneGuy 13:14, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * In the section OneGuy claims that the section of "Prisoners of War" is completely irrelevant to Jihad and must be deleted.


 * And I was right. Not only that belongs to a separated page but you also posted a completely distorted and one-sided POV version of POW.

Later, you tried to make your anti-Islamic version to dominate the article. This is not anti-Islamic hate site, as you seem to think it is OneGuy 13:14, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm getting the impression you don't care whether it's true or not, but whether it's "anti-Islamic" or not.


 * In the section, Alburundi claims that a story in Ibn Ishaq's Sira is a "well-known fraud" and compares the Sira to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion! In the same section, she claims that Muhammad's assasination of Asma bint Marwan is irrelevant to the subject of Jihad.


 * As you know, Muslims don't accept everything in Ibn Ishaq. For Muslims anything in Ibn Ishaq that contradicts the Qur'an is a lie. So Alberuni, as a Muslims, has every right to make that statement

OneGuy 13:14, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * In, OneGuy claims that terrorist incidents carried out by Islamists groups are not part of the military history of Muslim civilization. In the same section, Mustafaa declares that any sort of timeline of military activity is entirely inappropriate for an article on Jihad.


 * And I am absolutely right. Your timeline was nothing but a pathetic joke. It's like someone creating a Timeline of US military history and including Timothy McVeigh in the list. Or creating a Timeline of Jewish military history and including every terrorist or violent crime committed by any Jew anywhere. Your anti-Islamic agenda was clear there. Your attempt to link Muhammad to all kinds of religious/nationlist/sectareian random violence committed by any Muslims and link that to historical military wars was a crude attempt to insert anti-Islamic POV in the article. You need to take that Timeline to some other hate sites, not Encyclopedia OneGuy


 * POV? Hate site? An encyclopedia is not an Islamic PR site. If his claims are incorrect, say so, if they aren't, they should go into the article, even if they're not really causing new converts to flock to Islam.


 * This has nothing to do with "converts." The guy collected every random violent act committed by a Muslim for any religious/nationlist/political reason and called it a military history. That would be like collecting any violent act committed by a Jew and claiming it a Jewish military history. Such stuff doesn't belong in Encyclopedia OneGuy 03:47, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Of course, such information warrants a lengthy discussion on how much of it is attributable to Islam. However (as I mentioned in another section of this talk), it's not our place to pick and choose which ones are Islamical and which aren't.


 * In OneGuy claims that the Banu Qurayza were not prisoners of war. He also denies that Muhammad had anything to do with the massacre of the Banu Qurayza tribe.


 * Yes, and I am right. They were killed for a commiting treason during the time of war by the order of Sad ibn Muad, not because they were POW. OneGuy 13:14, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * In the section, Alburundi claims that no Muslim cleric who ever lived has ever issued a statement in support of suicide bombings. She also goes on to deny that contemporary militant Islamists who talk about "martyrdom operations" are in fact referring to suicide bombings.


 * In the article itself, one of the clowns has inserted a statement which claims that Qur'anic verse,  "Whosoever killed a person - unless it be for killing a person or for creating disorder in the earth - it shall be as if he killed all mankind; and whoso saved a life, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind." (5:32) makes it "unequivocally clear" as who is an "innocent person" and who is a "guilty person" even though the verse itself says anything in this regard.


 * In Alburundi denies that offensive Jihad is a part of Islam.


 * In the section Alburundi claims that any discussion of Islamist terrorism is irrelevant and must be deleted from the article about Jihad.


 * Alberuni is right. The discussion about terrorism needs to go to terrorism page, not Jihad page OneGuy 13:14, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * In the section Alburundi repeatedly denies that  Islamic paradise involves sex, despite multiple hadiths and Qur'an quotations proving the well known fact that Islamic paradise does in fact involve sex with virgin wives called Houris. Alburundi then goes on to sabatoge the Wikipedia article on Houris in order to be able to continue denying that Islamic paradise is described as involving sex.


 * Alberuni as a Muslim has every right to claim that paradise descriptions in the Qur'an are metaphoric. Other Muslim speakers have claimed that about paradise too. You, especially being an anti-Islamic bigot, don't have any right to interpret his/her religion for him/her. OneGuy 13:14, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * In, Alburundi admits that Spain was not invaded by Muslims, but rather the Spanish invited the Islamic empire to come and occupy Spain for some 700 years!! (see Al Andalus for history of the Islamist invasion of Spain).


 * In this section, "Ta bu shi da yu" questions the assertion that Muslims concider those who die while fighting Jihad to be shahid. Note that shahid is the Arabic for martyr and that martyrdom simply means dying in the cause of God. In the same section, "Ta bu shi da yu" asks what a liberal is. He also claims that he cannot understand what a traditionalist opponent of liberalism is. A comment is made about "the Muslim masses" and "Ta bu shi da yu" asks the profoundly stupid question "does this apply to all Muslim masses?" He claims that he cannot comprehend what the subject of "Offensive Jihad as a Method for the Propogation of the Islam Faith" has to do with a quoation from Enclyopedia Britannica entry on jizya that reads, "many converted to Islam in order to escape the tax."


 * In, OneGuy claims that the Qura'nic verse, "It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land" (8:67) actually "refers to freeing the prisoners without ransom."


 * That shows your complete dishonesty again. You took that verse with those parenthesis from either anti-Islamic hate sites, or from sites that claim the verse refers to freeing the prisoners without ransom, such http://users.mo-net.com/mcruzan/pows_01.htm


 * Pickthal doesn't have parenthesis at those places. Moreover, Yusuf Ali and Shaker don't have "great slaughter" in the verse. Why did you choose Pickthal (and I know you didn't get it from Pickthal) but not the other two translators? Could it have something to do with your pathetic attempt to make articles anti-Islamic? OneGuy 13:14, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Just to answer one element of your whining diatribe. Any objective reader can see that the verse refers to the importance of achieving victory in battle first before exchanging prisoners (ransom). I don't even understand how anyone can read this to mean that the Qur'an advocates executing POWs. There's not much point trying to educate an incorrigible bigot who thinks they already know everything. This hatchet job was a case study in Islamophobic hate. --Alberuni 05:48, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * and so on and so forth


 * With four or five of these morons ganging up against one person, all at the same time, it's impossible to win in the face of ignorance stupidity. I quit. --Pename 04:44, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * Please show some honor and keep your word this time. --Alberuni 05:49, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but I don't appreciate being called a moron. I also don't appreciate you asking us numerous times to take discussion of your edits to the talk page, and then have you attack me for asking questions! As you have asked me not to do, please do not make personal attacks. The cookie crumbles both ways Pename. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:08, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm extremely sorry to have to tell you this, but you're not exactly the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree. --Pename 05:23, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * I find such immoderate, insensitive, insulting and belittling comments to be extremely unhelpful for either getting consensus on this article, in resolving conflict and in fact shows a good deal of ignorance on the part of the one doing the insulting. No personal attacks. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:56, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree that the burden of proof is heavy, but it rests on the editor who is making claims. You are required to substantiate your claims with appropriate, credible citation.  I am willing to help you if you would like.  You may email me here.  Please consider changing your tactics and allowing other editors to verify your sources.  That is the policy of Wikipedia.  --Viriditas 04:55, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * You don't understand. It has nothing to do with sources or evidence. When I first started editing this article, a few days ago, it had four references. My latest version of the article has 18 references. No matter how meticulously you document the information, no matter how true it might be, the fanatics will quietly delete any information about Jihad that might be embaressing to Westernized liberal Muslims. If you try to put such information back, they will delete it again. I encourage you to try to improve upon the article, but I doubt you will get very far unless you tow the Islamist apologia line. Good luck. --Pename 05:16, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Aloha. First off, it's not a good idea to tell people "you don't understand".  Although it doesn't bother me, many people will take offense at that statement.  It's best to be as neutral as possible with language.  Perhaps you could write, "Let me explain my position", instead.  If you write (speak) carefully, you will get better results.  Secondly, IMO, this has everything to do with citing sources.  The claims in general, need to be associated with claimants.  We can't just say, "Pename said..."  That wouldn't work in the article, nor would it  be valid, unless you were a notable author or claimant.  If you need to repeatedly provide people with sources, then create a sub-page on your User page (ask me how and I'll show you) or document your sources on the main page and point to them by name.  You will find yourself repeating yourself alot, so get used to it.  It's also not a good idea to call people names like "fanatics".  Try to stick to non-confrontational language.  I know it's hard, but that's policy.  Again, I would be very pleased to help you with the article.  Just email me at the links I've provided here and on your user page.  --Viriditas 05:39, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * You describe yourself perfectly: One who "only excel(s) in presenting a completely biased and distorted view of Islam, rife with ommisions and out-right lies. " --Alberuni 05:48, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Pot. Kettle. Black. --Viriditas 07:02, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Please review No personal attacks and List of clichés. --Alberuni 03:16, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My response to Pename
''In this section, "Ta bu shi da yu" questions the assertion that Muslims concider those who die while fighting Jihad to be shahid. Note that shahid is the Arabic for martyr and that martyrdom simply means dying in the cause of God. In the same section, "Ta bu shi da yu" asks what a liberal is. He also claims that he cannot understand what a traditionalist opponent of liberalism is. A comment is made about "the Muslim masses" and "Ta bu shi da yu" asks the profoundly stupid question "does this apply to all Muslim masses?" He claims that he cannot comprehend what the subject of "Offensive Jihad as a Method for the Propogation of the Islam Faith" has to do with a quoation from Enclyopedia Britannica entry on jizya that reads, "many converted to Islam in order to escape the tax."''

Firstly, I note one of your most recent edits has the following edit summary: "ONEGUY: PLEASE DISCUSS EACH SPECIFIC SECTION THAT YOU EDIT IN THE TALK PAGE BEFORE EDITING". Well, I asked before editing a section, and you haven't addressed my questions yet!

Allow me to continue: I'm sorry, but I did not ask a profoundly stupid question. I am asking this because I am (obviously) not an expert on this article, and your edits appeared to make sweeping statements not backed up by an external source. Also:
 * you have not stated why "jizya" is related to this article. You might note that I haven't said that it has nothing to do with the article, I am merely asking you to clarify your statements. They seemed POV to me.
 * This is exactly the sort of reasons that I have stopped editing the article. Section 15 of this talk page is titled . I started this section a LONG time ago. Yet here you are, declaring that I have not stated why jizya is related to this article. Jizya is related to the subsection on "Offensive Jihad as a Method for the Propogation of Islam." The Muslims used to invade non-Muslim countries, impose Muslim imperial rule, and then impose a relatively hefty tax for non-Muslims only, called jiyza. As the Encylopedia Brtiannica explains, "many converted to Islam in order to escape the tax." Thus jiyza was a central part of the system that allowed Muslims to use Offensive Jihad as a method for the propogation of the Islamic faith. This is clearly spelled out in the article itself, and in numerous places in the talk page. Yet instead of arguing against the actual content, you are here ONCE AGAIN asking what jiyza has to do with Jihad. Either you are incredibly stupid or incredibly dishonest. Either way, it's enough reason for me to abandon the editing effort. --Pename 05:05, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * "He claims that he cannot comprehend what the subject of "Offensive Jihad as a Method for the Propogation of the Islam Faith" has to do with a quoation from Enclyopedia Britannica entry on jizya that reads, "many converted to Islam in order to escape the tax."''" Yes, and I still do! Perhaps you could address my question directly instead of dodging the question?
 * you still haven't explained by what you mean by a liberal Muslim. How am I meant to know what you are talking about? I know next to nothing about Islam! Perhaps you would like to actually address my concerns rather than call my comments "profoundly stupid"?
 * Try not to make personal attacks when I ask seemingly stupid questions: if I'm asking them I'm sure others are also. Your assumption that everyone will understand this material is quite wrong: Wikipedia articles should accessible to most people who have no prior knowledge of the topic they are reading about. You will be asked to clarify your edits if you continue to make edits where what you say is not clear to the reader! - Ta bu shi da yu 05:21, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Your questions are not stupid. His whole perspective is insanely bigoted and twisted. He can't read and interpret anything accurately because he is full of hate and bile. If he wants to discuss each edit individually we will be here forever because nothing can sway him from his obsessive phobia. I hope he keeps his promise this time. --Alberuni 05:48, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would prefer it if he would write from a neutral point of view, treat the opinions of others fairly and address the questions I have of this article. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:07, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "Personally, I would prefer it if he would write from a neutral point of view" <--- what makes you think you know what a neutral point of view regarding Jihad IS? You yourself admit that you know "next to nothing about Islam." So who made you the final authority on what what the objective facts about Islam are? --Pename 05:33, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * Because you use words like "terrorism", you quote from German bulletin boards (sources lead something to be desired), and because you don't ever try to understand the POV of the other side. That's why. I've been editing here for quite a while now, and I know POV when I see it. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:24, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * You are the final authority on what what the objective facts about Islam because I referred to those who carry out politically or religiously motivated indiscriminant murders of random civilians (e.g. suicide bombers on public buses) as terrorists, and because I linked to a post on a Muslim forum based in Germany - a forum post that was actually just a copy-paste of a fatwa from islam-qa.com???? WHAT? What do I have to do with YOU? How does the fact that I used the word "terrorism" in the article prove that all of my contributions are "ridiculously POV?" And what in hell do you have against the nation of Germany?


 * I think Wikipedia contributors should be required to pass some sort of test of intelligence characteristics before they can edit Wikipedia enclylopedia entries. Your claim, that if someone uses the word "terrorism" then all of his/her Wikipedia edits are automatically POV, borders on insanity. --Pename 07:58, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, now you're being ridiculous. I refuse to discuss issues with this article anymore, because you called me an "moron", told me I'm not the brightest light on the Christmas tree, and called me an "ignorant asshole". You also imply I'm attacking Germany (wtf?), I'm trying to be the final authority on this article (incorrect, and a mischaracterisation of what I'm trying to do here), refuse to answer questions I have about the article (though you have answered some), told me I didn't understand what "liberal" meant (unfair, I asked for clarification of what you meant by liberal Muslims &mdash; in case you don't realise, "liberal" could mean anything to anyone). You also have implied that I'm pushing a POV, which I'm not (I'm not even a Muslim!). When you can stop making personal attacks about me and mischaracterising my every comment, I'll continue discussion. Until then, no more replies! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:52, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pename
I strongly suggest that you read Cite sources. If you do not cite sources, then your information, whether credible or not, will probably be removed. This has been copied to your user page. --Viriditas 04:07, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On the cusp of a BOO word
Peace --

Despite the incompetence and/or venality of non-Muslim commentators, some headway has in fact been made in recent years to restore historically meaningful dimensions of the word "Jihad" to common usage.

What is clearly taking place here is an attempt to flatten it back out again so as to ensure its continued feasability as a rhetorical projectile against English-speaking Muslims.

Orwell warned us that a sign of totalitarianism is the manipulation of popular speech into the service of official doctrine. The irony here is that our vocabulary is being seized, explicitly, in the name of *forestalling* totalitarianism ... an inventive twist that not even Orwell predicted.

I need hardly point out that no responsible academic in this field would stoop to the depths to which Pename has stooped here. One example, and only one of many, is his pejorative use of the emotionally loaded term "terrorism" in ripostes such as the following:

"the timeline includes any military conflicts or terrorist attacks perpretrated under the banner of Jihad. whether or not you, or anyone else, approves of what happened does not mean that it did not happen."

"Terrorism" is, in contemporary usage, a BOO word, to be set in opposition to HURRAY words like "Freedom" or "Truth."

Unfortunately, for all its emotion, the term "terrorist" has now been drained utterly white, and no longer possesses (at least in popular usage) any useful meaning it may once have carried ... beyond, perhaps, the sense of "person considered an enemy and subject to official disapproval and censure." "Terrorist" once meant "someone who attacks civilians to further a political aim." You tell me how that definition describes an attack on a US convoy in Iraq, and I'll give you a cigar.

In common usage, the words "terrorist" and "terrorism" are simply clubs with which to pound perceived political and ideological opponents. Only writers who are out to inflame, rather than inform, will use such terms casually, as Pename does. He would like to add the word "Jihad" to his list of weapons.

Such an aim -- to communicate to inflame, rather than inform -- is the tradition of Joseph McCarthy and the early George Wallace. It is also, evidently, the tradition of Pename. But it is not the tradition of responsible scholarship, and it must be opposed wherever it appears in the guise of scholarship.

Brandon Yusuf Toropov


 * Out of curiousity, could you be more specific about Pename's claims? Instead of attacking him, please try to attack his evidence.  Pick one as an example, and go from there.  I'm sure we can all learn something from your knowledge on this subject. --Viriditas 02:47, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Ummm... he did substantiate his claims. He was referring to the way that Pename insists on using the word "Terrorist" in his article edits. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:52, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * He did not object to the context in which I used the word "terrorism" - he objected to the use of the word "terrorism" itself and declared that it is a meaningless POV word used to "club political opponents." And in your infinite wisdom, you agree with him! --Pename 03:56, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * Don't twist my words. I only pointed out that he had objections to the words you used, something that was specifically asked by Viriditas. Personally, I beleive that suicide bombers are terrorists, however I would not add this to the article as this is my POV, and I'm not here to push that. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:06, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "Don't twist my words. I only pointed out that he had objections to the words you used" <--- Don't lie in front of everyone. You said, "He was referring to the way that Pename insists on using the word "Terrorist" in his article edits." And then I pointed out to you that Yusuf was not just objecting to the way that I was using the word "Terrorist," but rather that Yusuf was objecting to any and all use of the the word itself. --Pename 08:27, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * I really must insist you stop engaging in personal attacks. Don't call me a liar. Until you can do this, I see no point discussing this topic with you directly, and will continue asking my questions (even if you decide not to respond). - Ta bu shi da yu 10:17, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Earlier in the discussion, he engaged in personal attacks, and then tried to deny it. Here he falsely accuses me of engaging in personal attacls. He says, "Don't twist my words." I retort, "Don't lie," and then he cries "don't call me a liar" and accuses me of engaging in personal attacks! I could just as well cry about him calling me a twister of words, and telling him to stop engaging in personal attacks, and then running off to file an RFC about it. This is "Ta bu shi da yu" tactic. He is deliberately dishonest and deliberately tries to agravate his opponent though his antics such as making false accusations against his opponent (we have an example right here for him making a false accusation of personal attacks; he is also in the habit of regularly making grossly uninformed, unjustified, and exagerated accusation of describing all of my editing efforts as  "ridiculously NPOV"), by encouraging revert wars against his opponent (i.e. encouraging and support people like Alberuni, who have extensive accepted RFCs already out against them), by abusing his authority (using RFCs as a threat, as another sysop pointed out), attempting to destroy, distort and sabatoge everything I work on at wikipedia, biting a newcommer (as another sysop pointed out), and engaging in other uncivility until the opponent is left with little avenue but to attack "Ta bu shi da yu's" person, i.e. engage in personal attacks. Once "Ta bu shi da yu" has agravated his opponent enough and  collected the resulting personal attacks, he runs off to file a "personal attacks" RFC against his opponent. And what is the purpose of all this? "Ta bu shi da yu's" great contribution to this article was to encourage known abusive and incivil users, such as Alberuni (who has an extensive, accepted RFCs already filed against him), to carry out a revert war, and to senselessly destroy important information without discussion, verification, or consensus. The greatest irony of all is that while he's busy destroying this information about the subject of Jihad, he readily admits that he knows "next to nothing about Islam." -- anonymous


 * "Despite the incompetence and/or venality of non-Muslim commentators" <--- Here we have a guy named Yusuf declaring that non-Muslims who write about Islam are incompotant and venal. I'm sure his contributions to the article will be the epitome of NPOV (sic).


 * "Terrorism is a BOO word ... no longer possesses ... any useful meaning." <--- So you have a problem with, say, suicide bombings in Israel, being called terrorism? Then you should delete any mention of the world "terrorism" anywhere on wikipedia, instead of only targetting the article on Jihad. You can start with the Wikipedia article on terrorism! --Pename 03:56, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * Pename, Terrorism is a word we frown on in Wikipedia for a range of reasons. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. Can you take the time to review NPOV? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:04, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "Terrorism is a word we frown on" <--- Who is "we?" Are you speaking on behalf of all wikipedia contributors? Or are you saying that Wikipedia has an official policy against the use of the word "terrorism?" If such a policy exists, is there a wikipedia entry about it, like there's an entry about NPOV?
 * "We" would be Wikipedia, where we try to remove POV language to try to achieve a neutral point of view. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:46, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * In any case, your statement that "Terrorism is a word we frown on" contradict your earlier statements in where you said:
 * "Also, with regards to terrorism, I'm not saying don't talk about terrorism" - Ta bu shi da yu
 * and "By the way, I agree they [suicide bombers] are terrorists" - Ta bu shi da yu 23:26, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * And? Yes, I said "I'm not saying don't talk about terrorism", and I meant it. I didn't say "label a group of people terrorists". And also, my personal opinion is just that: my opinion. I'm not notable, so I try not to add my POV to the article, I try to add things to articles that characterise events and opinions, that explain them but don't push my own opinion. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:46, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "And? Yes, I said "I'm not saying don't talk about terrorism", and I meant it. I didn't say "label a group of people terrorists"." <--- that's laughable. There's no way to talk about terrorsism without talking about terrorists. This is beyond ridiculous. --Pename 08:20, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * "One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. " <--- are you saying that it's POV to refer to certain groups as terrorist organizations? does the wanton, indiscriminant murdering of civilians for political or religious purposes not constitute terrorism? Terrorism is a well defined word, you know. Maybe you should read the wikipedia entry on terrorism.


 * Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:31, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying." <--- you have now clearly admitted that, according to you, referring to any organization as a terrorist organizaion is neccessarily a biased, unobjective, non-neutral point-of-view. Any non-neutral readers reading will immediately see that you are either completely non-neutral, or completely insane, because you are essentially saying that it is biased and subjective to label people who (for example) blow up babies in public busses as terrorists. --Pename 08:13, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * Please define terrorism. Thanks. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:44, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "Can you take the time to review NPOV?" <--- I have already reviewed that particular article. It does not mention the word "terrorism" anywhere; it certainly does not say that "terrorism" is a POV word. Perhaps it is YOU who take the time to re-review NPOV. --Pename 04:52, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * No, it doesn't. Why the heck would it?! If you call someone a terrorist, and they say they are not a terrorist, then you have stated a particular POV. Try to understand the concept for a second here, I'm surely you'll get it. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:31, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "If you call someone a terrorist, and they say they are not a terrorist, then you have stated a particular POV." <--- if someone says that the sun is frozen, and I say that the sun is very hot, then that too would be a case of me stating a particular point-of-view. The real question would then be, whose particular point-of-view is non-neutral point-of-view - the person who says that the sun is hot, or the person who says that the sun is cold? Similarly, it could be that some organization claims they are not terrorists but send suicide bombers into public busses in order to indiscriminantly kill as many random civilians as possible (including women and infants), for political purposes. I could claim that that organization is in fact a terrorist organization, because the wantom indiscriminant murdering of innocent civilians for political purposes is an act of terrorism. The question would then be, whose particular point-of-view is a non-neutral point-of-view. I think the answer is pretty obvious; it is an unbiased, objective and undeniable tautological fact that suicide bombers, who deliberately murder infants, are terrorists. --Pename 08:13, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * Please. Terrorism is a value judgement. The sun not being frozen is a fact. These are two seperate things. Perhaps you should read non sequitur? You know, you asked me to read the terrorism article, but you don't appear to have read it yourself. From Terrorism:
 * The use of the terms terrorism and terrorist is politically weighted, as these terms (and historically, other terms like them) are often used in propaganda to drum up support in opposition to the designated "terrorists." Governments that support the use of violence against civilians will tend to dissociate themselves from the term, and will instead use neutral or positive terms to describe combatants they approve of – such as freedom fighters, patriots, paramilitaries, militants, comrades or activists, all of which can be ambiguous.
 * Please review and get back to me. Thanks. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:13, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "The use of the terms terrorism and terrorist is politically weighted" <-- while the phrase "martyrdom operations" is not "politically weighted?" a legitimate encylopedia should refer to people who deliberately murder women, children and infants as "matrydom operators" instead of referring to them as what they clearly are: terrorists, i.e. those who terrorize innocent civilians in order order cause political change? It is YOU, Ta bu shi da yu, who are "ridiculously POV," as you call it. On top of that you admit that you know "next to nothing about Islam," and at the same time pretend to be the final authority on what the objective facts about Islam are.  To make things even worse, you are surprisingly ill informed even about concepts outside of Islam; you did not even know what the word "liberal" means. Worst of all you think you can use your own ignorance as an excuse to delete important information from articles. For example, just because you could understand what a liberal is, you believed you were justified in deleting references to liberals or liberal movements, within a certain population. Ridiculous. --Pename 02:56, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)



Where we read from Pename:

"It is widely known that the Qur'an paints a picture of a carnal paradise, where there is wine, fresh fruit, thrones to sit on, garment of silk, and women to have sex with. Perhaps Alberuni has some sort of fringe belief about Islamic paradise, but the vast majority of Muslims believe that the fair maidens of paradise describe in the Qur'an, and the 72 virgins for martrys in paradise, described in the hadith, refer to a carnal paradise involving sex. This is a very common interpretation, both amongst Muslims and non-Muslims, and amongst common people and academic scholars; it is not an 'Islamaphobe' interpretation. --Pename 02:00, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)"

I would find myself wishing for less literal-minted grasping for BOO words and more appreciation of the Qur'an's own insistence on symbolism and allegory. See 3:7 of the Qur'an (a critical verse) and also this excellent article:

http://www.geocities.com/masad02/appendix1

May I also point out that a non-Muslim lecturing on what is "widely known" about the faith, and about what the "vast majority" of Muslims believe, is condescending and inappropriate.


 * "I also point out that a non-Muslim lecturing on what is "widely known" about the faith, and about what the "vast majority" of Muslims believe, is condescending and inappropriate." <--- Yusuf is now stating that no non-Muslim can make statements about what the vast majority of Muslims believe! Apparently only Muslims are allowed to do so!! So if a non-Muslim says, "the vast majority of Muslims believe they must pray 5 times a day" it is condescending and inappropriate, but if a Muslim says the exact same thing then it is no longer appropriate!  Looks like with Yusuf we have an  Islamist bigot on our hands. BTW, Yusuf, I'll have you know that though I am not a Muslim I was born  as a Muslim, and studied Islam for 14 years before turning to atheism, and have lived in the Muslim world for much of my life. --Pename 04:52, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * You might have a small point here, however because you write against Islam so hard and never try balance your text with the opposing view its hard to see how you are trying to come to an understanding of the other side. Even if you were a Muslim before... But I agree with you that you should be able to make statements on what Muslims beleive. However, you might find it hard to say that "most Muslims beleive [such and such]" without a Muslim objecting to being mischaracterised. Sweeping statements are like that, you'll likely piss off at least one person. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:52, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "you write against Islam so hard and never try balance your text with the opposing view " <--- I see that you're back to making your vauge bullshit accusations, without specifying what you refer to. The funny thing is that you think I wrote the whole damn article, and you ask me questions about every part that you object to as if I authored every part of the article. So you don't even know what parts of the article I wrote, and what parts were written by others, and yet you go constantly around making vauge, derogatory comments about everything and anything I write. You admit that you don't know a thing about Islam, and yet your pretend that you know what an accurate description of what Islam's teachings on Jihad should look like. By your own admission, you know "next to nothing about Islam," and yet for some strange reason you think you are qualified to tell us what exactly should be written in a neutral and objective description of the Jihad-related aspects of shar'iah.  In short, you're an ignorant asshole, and whatever administrative privlidges you seem to have on this website should be permanently revoked. --Pename 03:25, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but I know you didn't write the whole article. I'm asking about the whole article, not just the parts you wrote. I'm not targetting you. I'm also not writing "derogatory comments" about every part of the article you wrote! sheesh. I merely asked you to clarify the article, some parts you did, others you didn't. I reverted your edits until we could get some clarification and consensus. I won't revert again, but I would hope that you stop adding POV. And, incidently, I have pointed out what I think is POV, so don't say I haven't. You have only added negative content, Alberuni, iFareeq, and BYT have pointed this out. You have so far managed to cause a great deal of controversy on this page with your personal insults and insistence on not modifying your content, and I think this is not terribly good for the article. Incidently, I've already filed an RFC on you for your insults. Your last is just too much: more insults will just be added to the RFC. "In short, you're an ignorant asshole, and whatever administrative privlidges you seem to have on this website should be permanently revoked" - Ta bu shi da yu 03:40, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "you write against Islam so hard and never try balance your text." Exactly. When he initially started editing the article, I didn't have problem. The article did need some balance, but then his agenda became extremely anti-Islamic. There was no balance. That became clear with his "Timeline" and POW (no balance again). He wants his own anti-Islamic tone to dominate the article. OneGuy 16:31, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "his "Timeline" and POW (no balance again)" <--- nevermind that you were unable to provide any rational arguments against having a timeline of Muslim military history in the article, or a section on Prisoners of War. Why don't you just admit that you don't want the non-Muslim Western audience of Wikipedia to know that Qur'an, hadiths, and shar'iah allow Islamic "holy warriors" to take the women and children of a defeated enemy and mercilessly force them into sexual slavery? That's your real motivation for senselessly destroying content such as the "Prisoners of War" section. --Pename 03:30, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

As to the houris with which Pename apparently has a formidable obsession, the very meaning of the word is a matter of some controversy:

http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol6No1/HV6N1PRPhenixHorn.html

... the pertinent extract of which may be quoted here under the principle of fair use:

"The major conclusion of section fifteen is that the expression h&#363;r c&#299;n means 'white (grapes), jewels (of crystal)' and not 'dark, wide-eyed (maidens)'"

This finding is controversial, and not one with which I necessarily agree, but the intense debate on the matter -- not to mention the xenophobic glee with which Islamophobes routinely use the phrase "72 virgins" as a catch-all phrase for anti-Islamic stereotyping and hatemongering -- suggest to me that the simple repetition of the popular understanding of the reference is utterly inappropriate here.

BYT

Suggestion for compromise
I have read the discussion on the use of the word "Jihad" with great interest and I think that you all have not been able to avoid a political clash. There is a way to deal with it by acknowledging that the word "Jihad" is used differently by different parties involved. 1. The word "Jihad" as it is used in the Holy Scriptures of the Muslims. 2. The word "Jihad" as it used by the Muslims themselves. 3. the word "Jihad" as it is used by those who are not muslims. Let me clarify this with an example: a Dutch political leader spoke of "Jihad" after the assissination of Theo van Gogh. Jihad and terrorism is one and the same to him. (This use of the word "Jihad" should be recognized but only under section three!) Thus by acknowledging that the word "Jihad" is also a political word, one can avoid that the discussion becomes a political quagmire.

Wereldburger758


 * I set up a new heading for this because it seems like a good idea. Rather than arguing about what the word SHOULD mean, it acknowledges that different people use the word different ways. Sections should also distinguish between different uses of the word inside the Muslim community (as between liberals and Islamists) and among non-Muslim commentators (some treat it respectfully, for some it's a swear-word). Zora 08:00, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Great idea. I agree that the word's status with different users should be cited early on. I think there's a good deal more to be said about the word's non-military connotations, too. I also believe that any discussion that may arise of rewards accompanying a Muslim's death on the battlefield should be supplemented with a responsible explanation of the allegorical and symbolic dimensions of the Qur'an. BrandonYusufToropov 13:45, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "a Dutch political leader spoke of "Jihad" after the assissination of Theo van Gogh. Jihad and terrorism is one and the same to him." <--- if the article on jihad had not been whitewashed, you would have been able to read about the fact that Islam's sacred scriptures state that Muhammad assasinated poets who spoke out against Islam. Every military activity that Muhammad took part in is called Jihad by Muslims, and assination is a military activity. There is very little difference between Muhammad assasinating poets who spoke against Islam, and a Muslim in 2004 assasinating Theo van Gogh who made a film that is critical of the position of women in Islam. Muslims are supposed to immitate Muhammad. The assasination of Theo van Gogh was indeed "Jihad." It's not the Dutch politician who does not understand the difference between Jihad and terrorism, rather it is you who is mistaken. Muslim assasinations and assasination attempts against critics of Islam are quite common; it should come as no surprise to the informed and rational individual that Muslims find justification for such bloodshed in their holy books. Also, many people on this discussion, including Wikipedia moderator "Ta bu shi da yu," are arguing that no one should be allowed to use the word "terrorism" because they feel the word itself is "ridiculously POV" (whatever that means). So they would object to your attempts at trying to make a distinction between Jihad and terrorism. For people like "Ta bu shi da yu" everything can be seen as terrorism and nothing can be seen as terrorism; so first you have to prove to "Ta bu shi da yu" that the word "terrorism" actually means anything, before you are allowed to discuss the distinction between Jihad and terrorism in the article. And I can tell you,  there's no way to logically reason with someone who denies that the word terrorism means anything at all. -- anon


 * Oh please. Firstly, you are not anonymous. You are Pename, I mean, look at your style for goodness sake! You firstly quote the contributor and then add "<---" to the comment. So please, have the honesty to sign in and add your comments to your user account. That would show guts and courage! also, I don't like the way that you have misquoted what you said. I didn't say that Terrorism means nothing at all! If you feel I did, I challenge you to provide a link to the edit history where I said this. No, what I said was that terrorism is a POV word, that has multiple meanings. Thanks. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:08, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "No, what I said was that terrorism is a POV word, that has multiple meanings." ... Mutliple completely contradictory meanings. If someone is arguing against using the word "foo" by saying that the word "foo" means "good" but "foo" also means "bad," then clearly in that person's mind, the word "foo" has no coherent meaning at all, and as such the word "foo" should not be used. This is essentially what you did when you tried to prove that the phrase "Islamist terrorism" should not be used in Wikipedia articles by citing the cliche, "One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist." -- anonymous


 * Wow. So far from the truth! "Multiple meanings" != "meaningless". The problem with the work Terrorism is that it has a different meaning to different people, which clearly means that in that person's mind "foo" means good, a very clear definition. It doesn't also mean that "foo" means bad to that person. It does mean that it means something different to another person. Hence the reason the word terrorism is a POV word. You clearly don't understand, however, and if you can't understand such a simple concept I'm not sure how to spell it out any clearer for you. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:44, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "it has a different meaning to different people, which clearly means that in that person's mind "foo" means good, a very clear definition. It doesn't also mean that "foo" means bad to that person ... You clearly don't understand, however, and if you can't understand such a simple concept I'm not sure how to spell it out any clearer for you." <--- you are no doubt not nearly clever enough to realize this, but you have just stated that you believe that "terrorism" can be good from your POV but not bad. Way to go, Ta bu shi da yu. -- anonymous


 * Yes, I noticed that too in his earlier comments. I guess after the RFC, he thinks he can just give up that user name now? I am starting to wonder how many Sock puppets he has here? OneGuy 12:19, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I doubt he has any sock puppets (at least I hope not!). Incidently, it's fine for him to comment as an anonymous user, however in this case it seems pretty useless. I still refuse to talk to him about things because of Pename's constant insults (see his talk page also), but in this case I decided to correct the record because he was saying misleading things about me. I wouldn't want anyone else to get the wrong impression of what's happening here! - Ta bu shi da yu 12:23, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "Incidently, it's fine for him to comment as an anonymous user, however ..." <--- no, not "however ...". If I wish to post anonymously, I shall post anonymously, and you shall suck it up and shut the fuck up about it. -- anon


 * Er, thanks Pename. I am allowed to talk about how you refuse to post with your username. So I will not "shut the fuck up about it". Have a nice day. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:44, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * to mr. anonymous and the rest,

Mr. anonymous, you wrote:"There is very little difference between Muhammad assasinating poets who spoke against Islam, and a Muslim in 2004 assasinating Theo van Gogh who made a film that is critical of the position of women in Islam." We are making an encyclopedia here and therefore this is not the place to express your opinion on this matter. Furthermore, I simply observed that the word "Jihad" was being used by this politician. Whether or not I agree with him on this matter is not the point. I observe too that in the Western world the word "Jihad" is being used by some as an equivalent for terrorism and war that is (supposedly) fought against the West. See for instance the sites: http://www.jihadunspun.net/home.php and http://jihadwatch.org/ This should be discussed in section 3. Here is a framework for section 3: The attack on Western civilians and Western properties has caused some deep unrest in the Western world. The acts are called terrorist actions by many in the Western world (Poetin, Bush, Blair) because of the fact that: 1. the actions are indiscriminate: the actions are against all civilians: women, children and not only against heads of state and military personnel. (Spain, NYC) 2. the actions are meant to do as much damage and harm as possible. (Again, THIS IS A SECTION 3 DISCUSSION!!) 3. the actions are done by loosely organised individuals who consider themselves at war with the Western world. Those who commit these so called terrorist acts are often believed to be members of an underground network called Al Qaeda. This organisation was founded by Usuma bin Laden. (Discussion of Usama bin Laden and his use of the word "Jihad" in section 2!) I think I have made my point now.

Wereldburger758


 * "We are making an encyclopedia here and therefore this is not the place to express your opinion on this matter. " <--- it's not merely my OPINION that Islam sanctions the assasination of those who publicly criticize Islam - this is a FACT. Do you know the difference between FACT and OPINION?


 * Let's take Rushdie as an example. Even though he didn't criticize Islam but only blasphemed it (supposedly), no country except Iran issued a death sentence. Al Azhar in Egypt (very prominent authority) explicitly rejected Iran's fatwa. Moreover, hundreds of people have written books criticizing Islam (including prominent scholars), but I am unaware (with a few exceptions in Muslim countries) of majority of Muslims calling for their deaths. There are radicals of course, but the majority opposed violence in those cases. There have been dozens of debates between Muslims and Christians when the vast majority in the audience was Muslim (in some cases everyone in the audience was a Muslim). The speaker was criticizing Islam, Muhammad, and the Qur'an. No one called for his death. What you are claiming ain't a fact. It's just another lie and distortion by you that can be easily refuted, just like I have refuted it here. That's what makes you mad, I guess? You are being refuted, and so the only way you can respond after that is by firing back with pathetic insults OneGuy


 * "Moreover, hundreds of people have written books criticizing Islam (including prominent scholars), but I am unaware (with a few exceptions in Muslim countries) of majority of Muslims calling for their deaths. " <--- OF COURSE you are unaware. You are not even aware that Muslims ever built empires, so how the hell would you be aware of something like this? The fact of the matter is that almost every critic of Islam recieves death threats. Certainly the majority of Muslims reject this sort of violence, and I agree that this should be emphasized throughout the article. BUT it cannot be denied that the sira, shari'ah and hadiths combine to PERMIT these death threats and assasinations, and that Islamic states have used these Islamic laws to regularly execute dissidents who criticized Islam. The fact of the matter is that the religion of Islam is in severe need of reform - these sorts of laws need the be somehow expundged from the religion. But Islam has never had any mass reform movements, like the much older religions of Christianity and Judaism have already had. So until there is such a mass reform movement, no one can deny that officialy Islam does sanction such assasinations, and it is because of this offical sanction that the so-called Muslim "radicals" go out and put the Islamic laws into action but carrying out assasination hits against those who publicly criticize Islam. -- anon


 * I never said that Muslims never built empires. If you can lie so shamelessly about what I said, no wonder you do that to the article too. Did every critique receive death threat? Ok, post proof that, say, William Muir and John Wansbrough (and I can post a thousand names afer you post proof for these two) received death threats. That's a typical exaggeration by anti-Islamic troll. He also ignored what I posted about Al Azhar and Rushdie. I will take their words over someone like him on what the Qur'an and hadith say on the topic OneGuy 08:59, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "I never said that Muslims never built empires." <-- you're right. I give you too much credit. Your claim was far more insane than that. You admit that Muslims built empires, but you deny that those Muslims were imperialists. This is about as simple a logical contradiction as the statement "1=2." And yet you shamelessly pretend that your denial of Islamic imperialism is logical and has credance. Who do you think you're going to convince? Do you see anyone agreeing with you, except perhaps the un-aptly named "Alberuni?"


 * "Ok, post proof that, say, William Muir and John Wansbrough (and I can post a thousand names afer you post proof for these two) received death threats." <-- clearly a logical fallacy. Just because well-known public figures who publicly criticize Islam recieve death threats and assasination attempts does NOT mean that everyone who as ever criticzed Islam in the public domain recieves death threats.


 * "He also ignored what I posted about Al Azhar and Rushdie." <-- Al Azhar is a Sunni university. It overturned the fatwa of the Shiah cleric Khomenie, AFTER Islam came under intense international pressure over the Rushdie affair. What Al Azhar says about Shiah fatwas, after buckling under international pressure, is hardly relevant, when the Qur'an, hadiths, sira and shar'iah are all umambigious about the fact that critics of Islam are supposed to be put to death. You did not even bother to source your claim about Al Azhar and Rushie; apparently we are just supposed to take the infallable word of Ayatollah OneGuy as the truth. Anyway, just because Al-Azhar rejects statements by Iranian clerics, does not mean the Al Azhar must be right and the Iranians must be wrong. The fact remains that large numbers of fundamentalist Muslims believe that they are supposed to assasinate or execute critics of Islam. Certainly not all Musilms believe this - that is an obvious fact, which does not need any supporting evidence, though your statement from Al Azhar re Rushie could serve as supporting evidence of this obvious fact. Just because you, as a Muslim, believe somethign about Islam does not mean that every other Muslim believes the same thing about Islam, Ayatollah OneGuy. It is beyond a doubt that large factions of Muslims believe in assasinating or executing critics of Islam, and they can easily find justification for their beliefs in Islam's holy scriptures - a well-known fact that has been cited and proven here, numerous times - and any attempts to deny this fact is nothing more than dishonest propoganda by an bunch of Islamic who want to whitewash every single fact about Islam which might suggest that Islam is incompatable with modern democratic secualar humanism.


 * "I simply observed that the word "Jihad" was being used by this politician. Whether or not I agree with him on this matter is not the point." <--- no, you clearly objected to the politician's usage of the word "jihad" when you said "Jihad and terrorism is one and the same to him. (This use of the word "Jihad" should be recognized but only under section three [i.e. a section on the non-Muslom defintion of Jihad]!). You were suggesting that no Muslims would concider the murder of Theo van Gogh to be an act of Jihad - that only non-Muslims would think such a thing. This is complete bullocks - it's nothing more than a factual error made by an ill informed individual using the alias "Wereldburger758." As I have demonstrated over and over again, the hadith, shar'iah and sira all unequivocally support the assasinating of anyone who publicly criticizes Islam.


 * " I observe too that in the Western world the word "Jihad" is being used by some as an equivalent for terrorism and war that is (supposedly) fought against the West. See for instance the sites: http://www.jihadunspun.net/home.php" <--- buddy, you clearly have no fucking clue what you're talking about. jihadunspun.net is not characteristic of the Western world's opinions on Jihad - jihadunspun.net is run by a Canadian woman who converted to Islam shortly after 9/11! You're posting things from Muslim websites, and then suggesting that such opinion "should be discuss under section 3" ("section 3" being an imaginary section in the article about the non-Muslim POV re Jihad)! one of the worst things about wikipedia is that it encourages people who have no clue what they're talking about to spew nonsense and to endlessly bicker and argue against people who DO know what they're talking about. --anon


 * I agree on wiki even people who don't have a clue can edit and distort, and then when refuted, resort to childish insults, like you are doing above :)) 1,300 years of imperialism, weak isnad means forged hadith; Muslims accept everything in Ibn Ishaq as a historical fact; every Muslim interprets everything in the Qur'an literally (including paradise description); distortions about Banu Quriza and one-sided anti-Islamic version of POW copied from anti-Islamic web sites and authors; a joke of a timeline. All that and much more has shown that you don't have a clue what you are babbling about, but you still want to push your bigotry by distorting things anyway. Sorry, but such nonsense won't work here OneGuy 07:19, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * first of all, i was not speaking to you, and you are totally off topic. take your bickering somewhere else - start a new section for it. secondly, you've shown yourself to be an islamic bigot and a complete imbecile (e.g. claiming that Islamic civilization does not have a 1,300 year history of imperialism). as such, your lies (e.g. that i copied the POW section from somewhere) and your insane opinions (e.g. that Islam does not have a history of imperialism) would be dismissed by all but the most extremist members of your little islamic cabal here on wikipedia. -- anonymous


 * Only someone as ignorant as you could describe the very complex 1,300 years of history as "Islamic Imperialism." Let's take Abbasid Caliphate from around 900 to 1258 as an example. During this time, the Abbasid Caliphs were rulers only in name but didn't have real power outside Baghdad. There were Turkish slave soldiers who became more powerful than the Caliph (even in Baghdad). Hamdanid ruled Northern Iraq from 905 to 1004. Other dynasties like Buwayhid, Seljuk, Khwarezmid came to power in different parts of the Middle East (each fought the other). Also, there were governors and Amirs who were rulers of cities and provinces and basically independent, like Zengi who was the governor of Aleppo and Mosul. Also, during this time, Fatimid were ruling North Africa and rejected Abbasid even as symbolic Caliph. Then Saladin created his own dynasty by defeating Fatimid in Egypt. There were Crusades who occupied most of Syria (all this happened during 900-1258 of Abbasid). After that, Mongols (not even Muslim) conquered most of Muslim land. 200/300 years after Mongols, Ottoman and Safavid conquered most of the land; both were "Muslims" but yet enemies. How can you call all this complex history as Islamic imperialism? Why is that Islamic anyway? Everything in history is not motivated by religion. You are nothing but a troll who read some anti-Islamic pamphlets and now thinks he is some kind of expert and has a right to spew that nonsense in wiki articles too.  OneGuy 14:20, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "Only someone as ignorant as you could describe the very complex 1,300 years of history as "Islamic Imperialism." " <--- look everyone! OneGuy is completely discrediting himself! THis is the guy who is providing most of the supposedly "NPOV" content in the Jihad article, and he can't even admit that Muslims were ever imperialists, he denies outright that they ever tried to build empires! This is the sort of dispicable whitewashing of Islam and Islamic history that is passing for enclyopedia material, here on Wikipedia. WHY is such nonsense passing for enclyopedia content? Wikipedia user BSveen described it best when he said, "This article in its current form is pro-Mulsim propaganda  ... with an army of jackbooted Islalmists behind it ready to pounce on anyone trying to tell the truth. I don't dare edit it lest I get into an "edit war" with one or more pro-Islamist fanatics. I don't have time to waste fighting Muslim extremists on Wikipedia." --anon


 * More twisting. I never that "Muslims were never imperialists." What I said was that not all 1,300 years of history can be described as imperialism. If you can distort so shamelessly what I said here, no wonder you would do that to the article too OneGuy 08:43, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The fact of that matter is that it is YOU who are everything that you accuse me of. It is you who is the shameless liar, the propogandist, and the bigot. I can pin-point the exact place where you denied that Musilms were imperialists:
 * "Why would "empire" be necessarily imperialism? OneGuy 19:00, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)"
 * The Muslim theocratic empire, that began with Muhammad and his early successors, and was ruled for several centures by the descendants of Muhammad's relatives, was imperialism in all of its forms. In the 7th century, Muhammad's close companion and second successor, Caliph 'Umar, launched the first Islamic aggressive wars against MY native homeland. The Muslims sought to conquor my people, and convert them to their repressive cult of death and destruction. Umar's attacks against my homeland failed, but in subsequent centuries, the Muslims did succeed in invading and conquering it. They razed temples, destroyed universities, burned libraries, installed a brutal imperial dictatorship ruled by the small minority that made up the country's Muslims, they enslaved and raped women and children, they stole the land and wealth, they imposed the horrid tyranny of shar'iah on all the peoples, without their consent. Music, imagery and statues were banned under shar'iah, because they are explicitly banned in the hadiths. In this way, the Arab Islamic invaders tried to destroy my people's culture and replace it with their own culture of medieval bedouin warriors - and they had a lot of success, though they could never completely destroy our culture. And our's is just one such part of the world, from hundreds of others. The Islamic imperialists did this for centuries, accross vast regions of the earth, spanning from Spain to eastern China, from Greece to Ethiopia. The only imperialists in history who conquered, raped and pillaged more than the Muslims were the British. Many Muslims complain to no end about "Western imperialism" - they say that they are the victims of this brutal "Western imperialism." Yet if the victims of Islamic imperialism say a single word about the brutality and injustice that they suffered at the hands of Muhammad and his followers, they are immediatly pounced on by Islamists (like you) and called bigots, Islamaphobes, racists, and all manner of things. For you to stand here and declare that vast Islamic empires did not exist for 1,300 continuous years, or that the existance of this Islamic empires does not imply 1,300 continious years of Islamic imperialism, is not only a factual inaccuracy but a grave injustice and an insult to the history and memory of my people, and the history and memory of thousands of other peoples who were conquered by the Islamic empire. It's high time that Islamic appologists such as yourself stopped whitewashing the horrid, imperial 1,300 year past of Islam, and instead admitted that all this imperialism and these vast empires were wrong, that they were a grave injustice and a great oppression, just like you accuse non-MUslim imperialists of wrongdong, grave injustices and great oppression. Instead, the only thing we hear from even the most moderate Muslims is excuses and whitewashing of history, trying to portray these evil empires as some sort of benevolant, non-imperial force that did not wrong the peoples that it conquored. Let's see you admit that the Islamic empires were imperialist projects that were inherently immoral, since imperialism is inherently immoral. You will probably never admit this, no matter how "moderate" a Muslim you are. As I wrote in the now destroyed Jihad article, the vast majority of Muslims today still continue to see their imperialist past in a positive light, in drastic contrast to the vast majority of Western peopels who see their imperialist pasts as dark and regrettable episodes in the history of mankind. Alas, nothing less can be execpted from a religion whose founder was an imperialist.  -- anonymous


 * I refuted the lie that all 1,300 of complex history can be called Islamic imperialism. All I need to do is repeat what I said: " Let's take Abbasid Caliphate from around 900 to 1258 as an example. During this time, the Abbasid Caliphs were rulers only in name but didn't have real power outside Baghdad. There were Turkish slave soldiers who became more powerful than the Caliph (even in Baghdad). Hamdanid ruled Northern Iraq from 905 to 1004. Other dynasties like Buwayhid, Seljuk, Khwarezmid came to power in different parts of the Middle East (each fought the other). Also, there were governors and Amirs who were rulers of cities and provinces and basically independent, like Zengi who was the governor of Aleppo and Mosul. Also, during this time, Fatimid were ruling North Africa and rejected Abbasid even as symbolic Caliph. Then Saladin created his own dynasty by defeating Fatimid in Egypt. There were Crusades who occupied most of Syria (all this happened during 900-1258 of Abbasid). After that, Mongols (not even Muslim) conquered most of Muslim land. 200/300 years after Mongols, Ottoman and Safavid conquered most of the land; both were "Muslims" but yet enemies. How can you call all this complex history as Islamic imperialism? Why is that Islamic anyway? Everything in history is not motivated by religion. 14:20, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "I refuted the lie that all 1,300 of complex history can be called Islamic imperialism." <--- You didn't refute anything. Look at your hypocracy. First you were arguing that there were no empires. Then you started arguing that they didn't contitute imperialism. Now you are arguing that they didn't constiture Islamic imperialism. The fact that your position keeps changing proves that you have no ground to stand on, you are just pulling for straws. The vast Islamic empire was (a) started by Muhammad and his closest companions, the four caliphs, and it was ruled for centures by Muhammad's relatives (b) the empires were always ruled by Muslims under Islamic law (shar'iah), even when ruled by the Ottoman Turks. Therefore, they were ISLAMIC empires. Every single one of these Empires made a POINT of having the holy ISlamic cities of Mecca and Medina under their rule, and the emperors called themselves CALIPHS, i.e KHALIFAS, which is a legal and political term from ISLAMIC shar'iah. Pretending that there was nothing Islamic about the Islamic empires is ridiculous.


 * "Let's take Abbasid Caliphate from around 900 to 1258 as an example." <--- Um. The Abbasids were clan from Muhammad's tribe - they were Muhammad's relatives. The Abbasid Caliphate is as "Islamic" as an empire gets.


 * "During this time, the Abbasid Caliphs were rulers only in name but didn't have real power outside Baghdad." <--- this is false. The Abbasids actually began in Mecca, then moved the captial of their empire to Baghdhad, and then it was moved to Damascus. They had a huge amount of influence and power, OUTSIDE of Baghdad. You have not provided any sources for your false claim, so it is dismissed. Anyway, it is hard to expect a medieval empire to be in full control of such vast expanses. But they did have enough control to collect jizya and zakat income tax on everyone, and to impose shar'iah on everyone. Stop being ridiculous, trying to tell us that a dynasty which ruled a vast and powerful empire for 350 years had no power outside of its capital. GEt a hold of yourself, man.


 * "here were Turkish slave soldiers who became more powerful than the Caliph (even in Baghdad)." <--- even if we assume, for a moment, that your unsourced and exceptional claim is true, what does it prove? some people say that Mayer de Rothschild had more power than the King of England. Does this mean that the British empire didn't exist, or that it wasn't a British empire? Of course not.


 * "Hamdanid ruled Northern Iraq from 905 to 1004. Other dynasties like Buwayhid, Seljuk, Khwarezmid came to power in different parts of the Middle East (each fought the other)." <-- there was a great deal of infighting, but it is clear that there was one overwhelmingly dominant and incredibly vast empire - the dominant and vast empire of the time was usually marked by who controlled Mecca and Medina. And so what if there were break away factions from the Islamic Empires, and fighting with them? Such is the natural course of empire.


 * "After that, Mongols (not even Muslim) conquered most of Muslim land. 200/300 years after Mongols, Ottoman and Safavid conquered most of the land; both were "Muslims" but yet enemies." <--- no, they didn't conquer most of Muslim land, at least not in as non-Muslims. The Mongols converted to Islam aftering sacking Baghdad, and they became the Muslim rulers of the Islamic empire of a time. So what? Is an Islamic empire only Islamic if it is ruled by Arabs? If Mongols or Turks rule it, it is no longer Islamic? Just because there was in-fighting in the empire, or because some parts of the empire broke off and tried to make their own empires, means that there was no Islamic imperialism? Your argument is COMPLETE NONSENSE.


 * "How can you call all this complex history as Islamic imperialism? Why is that Islamic anyway? Everything in history is not motivated by religion." <--- for the same reason that you call the complex history of the Crusades "Christian imperialism" and not "Italian imperialism." As stated before, these empires were based on the Islamist ideology, their spiritual capitals were the Islamic holy cities of Mecca and Medina (which they fought vigerously to control), their rulers were almost exclusively Muslims, their subjects were largely Muslims, the emperors called themselves CALIPHS, a legal and political term from shar'iah, and the Caliphs imposed Islamic law all accross their empires, they built huge mosques, they promoted Islam through the educational systems, and so on and so forth.  This is a period in time called ISLAMIC HISTORY, and these political entitites are called ISLAMIC EMPIRES by historians. You are trying to rewrite history, OneGuy, and so far no one has agreed with you, and your arguments have been refuted at length. -- anon


 * Please, no personal attacks. We mean it! - Ta bu shi da yu 12:50, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * why don't you follow your own advice? yesterday you were telling me that I'm not intelligent enough to understand your supposedly brilliant expositions on the word "terrorism," simply because I disagreed with you. And just before you made this nagging post to me, your friend OneGuy has called me an "ignorant anti-Islamic troll who read some anti-Islamic pamphlets" simply because I said that Islam has a history of imperialsm! Why the helll don't you run about crying and "tattle taling" like a schoolyard wimp about other people's personal attacks and your own personal attacks against me? you're selectively targetting me and using your wikipedia administrative rights to persecute me because your biased, religiously motivated point-of-view conflicts with many of the objective facts that I presented here. your administrative rights on wikipeida should be permanently revoked, for the betterment of the wikipedia encylopedia and the wikipedia community. -- anon


 * Sigh. Take it to arbcom then. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:29, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Meanwhile ...
Let's consider the following possibilities for specific additions to this article.


 * Clear discussions of Qur'anic ***non-military*** connotations of the word "Jihad," referencing translations of specific passages, thus illuminating the Qur'an's usage of the word. Resisting pressure from peers and parents, for instance (25:52), or striving for righteous deeds (26:69). If the Qur'an is not a relevant authority on how this word should be interpreted, then there is no relevant authority.


 * Equal time for those verses of the Qur'an outlining circumstances requiring peaceful coexistence with non-Muslim groups (e.g., 8:61). In my experience, only two groups -- Islamic extremists and the equally troublesome NON-Islamic fundamentalists -- make a habit of insisting that such verses are not relevant to the discussion.


 * A much fuller discussion of the influential Sufi notion of "greater jihad" (struggle against the self) vs. "lesser jihad" (military conflict) -- as distinguished from the term as it evolved within a political/imperial context. It's a fascinating topic.


 * Inclusion in the article of the following ahadith:

(A man asked the Prophet (S)), "Should I join the jihad?" He asked, "Do you have parents?" The man said, "Yes!" The Prophet(S) said, "then strive [literally, engage in jihad] by (serving) them!" Sahih Al-Bukhari #5972

(A man asked the Prophet (S)), "What kind of jihad is better?" He replied, "A word of truth in front of an oppressive ruler!" Sunan Al-Nasa'i #4209

(The Prophet (S) said),   "... the mujahid (one who carries out jihad) is he who strives against himself for the sake of obeying Allah, and the muhajir (one who emigrates) is he who abandons evil deeds and sin." Sahih Ibn Hibban #4862


 * Finally, I respectfully take issue with the implication in the opening section that it is not common for Muslims to refer to academic or other non-military pursuits as jihad. Recently I heard an imam summarize our responsibility for helping to bring about a clean environment as eco-jihad. Everyone in the masjid knew he was not talking about launching a military strike in order to forestall the greenhouse effect.

Even though we have now (accurately) acknowledged that the word means different things to different people, we are still spending MOST of the focus of the article on the exclusively military dimensions of this concept. This seems to me to be lacking in balance. BrandonYusufToropov 13:28, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The most common and primary meaning of the word Jihad, in contemporary paralance, is the military dimension of the word. The Sufist perversion of the word is limited to a small number of non-violent mystics who are rejected by the mainstream (Sufis of all kinds are highly controversial amongst Muslims). The word jihad has a secondary, general meaning of a "general struggle." This is similar to how the English word "crusade" refers to (a) Christian holy wars and (b) a general struggle (e.g. "a crusade against greenhouse gases.") BUT it would be UTTERLY RIDICULOUS to give equal importance, on the Crusade article, to both meaning (a) and meaning (b). Obiviously the military-related meaning of Crusade is far more important and relevant the secondary meaning; as such, spending half the article talking about "crusades against enviornmental pollution" and "crusades to serve one's parents" and so forth would be quite laughable. The vast vast majority of people searching for "Jihad" on Wikipedia are not thinking of "striving to serve one's parents" or "eco-Jihad" they are thinking of Jihad as in Islamic holy war. It is the blackest kind of propoganda to insist that both the militant and non-militant meanings of the word Jihad deserve equal time on this article. Furthermore, your little story about your "eco-Jihad imam" does not mean that when Muslims usually use the word "Jihad" they mean "eco-Jihad." It's beyond question that the primary defintion of "Jihad," in the contemporary Islamic lexicon, is "war" and not "eco-struggle" or whatever other attempts to de-militarize the meaning of Jihad that modernist liberal Muslims are making in the West, in a futile effort to de-militarize the image of Islam itself. -- anonymous


 * He posted his argument from the Qur'an. Pardon me, but I will take his word over yours OneGuy 09:04, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * SOMEONE who sounds eerily like Pename writes: "The vast vast majority of people searching for "Jihad" on Wikipedia are not thinking of 'striving to serve one's parents' or 'eco-Jihad' they are thinking of Jihad as in Islamic holy war." To the contrary, I believe such users would be consulting Wikipedia to determine exactly what this obviously controversial word actually means. The soundbite stuff is already out there. I stand by my suggestion that at least one half of the article should focus on the Qur'an's usage of the word, with specific citations. Again, if there is a higher authority in Islam than the Qur'an, I would like to hear what it is. And please sign your comments next time. BrandonYusufToropov 11:54, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I made several points against your proposal, you only ATTEMPTED to counter ONE point (namely, "The vast vast majority of people searching for "Jihad" on Wikipedia are not thinking of 'striving to serve one's parents' or 'eco-Jihad' they are thinking of Jihad as in Islamic holy war.") You simply IGNORED all other logical arguments against your idea, and pretended that you had won the debate. Furthermore, the Qur'an's usage of the word "jihad" does not dictate the primary meaning of the word in the contemporary Muslim and non-Muslim lexicons. The Qur'an is not a higher authority than Reality, and the Reality of the matter is  that the primary meaning of "Jihad" is "Islamic holy war," just as the primary meaning of "Crusade" is "Christian holy war." "Jihad" can mean "struggle" in Arabic, just as "Crusade" can mean "struggle" in English, but it is propoganda of the blackest kind to insist that for every word said about the primary meaning, an equal number of words must be said about the secondary meaning. There is a lot more to say about Jihad as a holy war than there is to say about Jihad as a general struggle, unless you are an Islamist propogandist who wants to distract people from the issue of militancy in Islam by flooding the Jihad article with a listing of all the difference kinds of struggles that come under the category of general struggle. One could fill thousands of pages describing the details of all the different types of struggles that a Muslim might go through in life, but that would be a completely ridiculous description of "Jihad." You, sir, are a flaming propogandist. -- anonymous user

You did? I just checked the contribution history for User:200.212.114.3 and I can't see where you suggested anything. Please show us what you discussed! - Ta bu shi da yu 21:52, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * uhh .. I am posting as a totally anonymous user. Maybe a mental defecient such as yourself cannot  keep track of who said what, if an anonymous user is taking part in the discussion. But this is your personal problem, not my problem. -- anonymous


 * "uhh" yourself. If you are posting as "anonymous" (perhaps you should look up the meaning of that word?) user and yet have never posted from this IP address before, then how are we meant to know what you are referring to? If you are referring to posts as a previous user, then exactly how am I meant to know that?!?! You are posting anonymously! - Ta bu shi da yu 00:50, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Newbie" question for Ta bu shi da yu (or anyone else): Is the article going to stay protected for a lengthy period of time? If so, how do I submit proposed revisions? BrandonYusufToropov 00:39, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I didn't protect it. However, usually pages are protected until one or more authors cool down and discuss issues on the talk page. I can find the original admin and request the unprotect the page if consensus has been reached that issues are resolved. (I can actually do this, but won't because I have become too involved in this article) I would request that we wait another 24 hours, however, because I blocked the anon for this period of time for making personal attacks. If the anon continues to make reverts in the way they are then I will request arbitration. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:47, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Ok -- thanks for clarification. BrandonYusufToropov 01:53, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "If the anon continues to make reverts in the way they are then I will request arbitration." <--- Hmm. The last time I was an anon and made revert as .... aboout a month ago, before a signed up under the username Pename. Several days ago I decided to stop editing the Jihad article and around the same time I locked myself out of my account. So in recent history, I have not done any reverts as an anonymous user. I stopped editing the article altogether long before the article entered protected mode. Let's look at the article edit history ... today is November 30:


 * # (cur) (last) 17:06, 24 Nov 2004 Blankfaze (This page is protected.)
 * # (cur) (last) 16:13, 24 Nov 2004 Alberuni (rv Islamophobic campaign pending consensus in Talk)
 * # (cur) (last) 15:35, 24 Nov 2004 Stereotek (rv. Yes there is. Please use the Talk page, to explain this senseless destruction of useful information.)
 * # (cur) (last) 15:23, 24 Nov 2004 Mustafaa (as Ta bu si da yu points out - there's a reason we have Talk pages)
 * # (cur) (last) 12:56, 24 Nov 2004 -lothario- (rever whitewash)
 * # (cur) (last) 12:35, 24 Nov 2004 Ta bu shi da yu (Those changes need talking about first, so far this hasn't been done.)
 * # (cur) (last) 10:51, 24 Nov 2004 207.44.192.52 (rv. whitewash)
 * # (cur) (last) 06:45, 24 Nov 2004 OneGuy (Removed Spam Blog link)
 * # (cur) (last) 06:05, 24 Nov 2004 202.14.179.253 (External links)
 * # (cur) (last) 17:54, 23 Nov 2004 Alberuni (rv hate speech)
 * # (cur) (last) 17:41, 23 Nov 2004 Pename (Offensive Jihad - added Wikipedia link to phrase "Liberal Muslims")
 * # (cur) (last) 17:25, 23 Nov 2004 Stereotek (rv vandalism)
 * # (cur) (last) 17:18, 23 Nov 2004 Alberuni (rv Islamophobia)
 * # (cur) (last) 17:08, 23 Nov 2004 Stereotek (rv. back to last edit by Pename)
 * # (cur) (last) 16:39, 23 Nov 2004 82.44.96.4 (Offensive Jihad as a Method for the Propagation of Islam)
 * # (cur) (last) 15:55, 23 Nov 2004 Stereotek ((rv. back to last edit by Pename))
 * # (cur) (last) 15:24, 23 Nov 2004 Alberuni (rv anon sockpuppets)
 * # (cur) (last) 07:51, 23 Nov 2004 -lothario- (revert back to last edit by Pename)
 * # (cur) (last) 01:45, 23 Nov 2004 Alberuni (rv to OneGuy, this article has been warped by an Islamophobe and needs to be reverted back to October)
 * # (cur) (last) 01:17, 23 Nov 2004 Pename (Offensive Jihad as a Method for the Propagation of Islam - re-inserting phrase "1,300 year history of imperialism" see talk section titled "1,400 years of imperialism")
 * # (cur) (last) 01:09, 23 Nov 2004 Pename (reversion. ONEGUY: PLEASE DISCUSS EACH SPECIFIC SECTION THAT YOU EDIT IN THE TALK PAGE BEFORE EDITING.)
 * # (cur) (last) 01:09, 23 Nov 2004 Pename (reversion. ONEGUY: PLEASE DISCUSS EACH SPECIFIC SECTION THAT YOU EDIT IN THE TALK PAGE BEFORE EDITING.)


 * So the last time that "the anon" (i.e. Pename, me) reverted the article was on November 23, and the reversion was done under the username Pename, not anonymously. That was over a week ago. And now TODAY our friendly local "NPOV" sysop "Ta bu shi da yu" is threatening to requestion an arbitration if "the anon (i.e. me) continues to make reverts in the way they are." Notice that the most prolific reverts where Alberuni and OneGuy, two people who just HAPPEN to have a Muslim point of view. Alberuni is a known troll who has an approved RFC out against him "for Personal attacks, incivility, and false accusations," . There were several other reverts as well, as anyone can see. Yet, curiously enough, our local "NPOV" sysop, "Ta bu shi da yu," chose to specifically identify my reverts and ONLY my reverts to this article as anything objectionable that might be cause of an RFC. I continue to be amazed by "Ta bu shi da yu" prejudice and willingness to openly abuse his authority in order to persecute me simply because he has decided to staunchly take the side of extreme Alberuni-style Islamic appoligsts in this conflict over the contents of wikipedia Jihad article, even though he openly admits that he knows "next to nothing about Islam."


 * Please explain, "Ta bu shi da yu," why did you single my reverts out today, even though I haven't done a reversion in a week, even though many users continued to revert and re-revert the article after I decided to completely abandon editing the article altogether? I made it abundently clear in the talk page that I was going to abandon editing this article because of the persecution I faced by the a mob of Islamic apologists and you, a sysop, as their make-shift ring leader. You KNOW very well that I stopped editing this article even before it was blocked - the above edit history record proves it. I don't plan on editing it in the future either. The only reason you said, "If the anon continues to make reverts in the way they are then I will request arbitration," is that you are getting comfortable in your new role as the ring leader of a mob of extremist Islamic apologists who have been using every dirty trick in the book in their attempts to prevent me from posting the objective, verifiable, sourced, and true facts about Jihad. This is what you mean when you say, "I have become too involved in this article." And because you're starting get comfortable in your new ring leader role, you are also getting comfortable with illogically and sloppily making false accusations against me, in your efforts to please the apologists and also impress the newbie extreme Islamic apologist, our new friend "Yusuf."


 * "I can find the original admin and request the unprotect the page if consensus has been reached that issues are resolved. (I can actually do this, but won't because I have become too involved in this article)" <--- let's look at this statement more closely. Particularly, what did "Ta bu shi da yu" mean when he said, "I have become too involved in this article"? He admits that he know "next to nothing about Islam," so one would not expect him to be making major contributions or frequently making major edits to articles about Islam. After all, a legitimate encylopedia article about a subject can only be written by dedicated scholars of the subject, and not by casual laymen observers who admittedly know "next to nothing" about the subject. So what has "Ta bu shi da yu" been up to, that causes him to say, "I have become too involved in this article?" Well, "Ta bu shi da yu" was originally portraying himself as a neutral mediator. But now he feels that he is can no longer use his sysop privlidges to moderate, mediate, or arbitrate the article, because he says he has become "too involved" with the article. The only reason that a sysop would feel that he can no longer use his special privlidges to moderate, mediate, or arbitrate a dispute is if that sysop felt that he was too far gone to have any claims at being a neutral party - that is, if he felt he was "too involved in this article." So he doesn't know anything about Jihad or Islam AND he admits that he's "too involved" to be neutral between the Muslim apologists and the non-Muslim critics. So what is his contribution? What is "Ta bu shi da yu" trying to accomplish here? "Ta bu shi da yu," please go file an RFC on this page. What have you be waiting for all this time? Why haven't you filed an RFC already with your sysop privlidges? Do you think that you are actually capable of arbitrating, mediating or moderating this complex dispute by yourself? There is no way. You are in over your head. You should distance yourself from this article - stop editing it, and stop trying to arbitrate this dispute. Leave the major editing of the Jihad article to those who don't openly admit that they know "next to nothing about Islam," and leave the arbitrating to those who are not "involved in the article now," as you say you are. -- anonymous


 * So you would like me to unlock the page? You would like me to perform rollbacks on the article? I'm confused. I thought you didn't want me to use this page. But, as you don't seem to understand things, I have said I won't use my admin powers to do things to this page because that would be seen as biased. So, do you or don't you want me to use my admin powers on this page?! Incidently, you got blocked for making personal attacks. Also, if we now all know that you are Pename, how exactly are you anonymous?! Anonymous would mean that we don't know who you are. Now we do. The logic boggles the mind. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:30, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "So you would like me to unlock the page? You would like me to perform rollbacks on the article? I'm confused." <--- I thought I was pretty clear about it: I don't care what you do with the article, at this point. So long as this mob of extremist apologists is allowed to terrorize objective critics of Islam all accross Wikipedia, I don't see any point in editing since they will just revert anything I contribute, by hook or by crook. It's not about the article anymore. I'm just exposing you and them for the frauds that you and they are. Maybe I will try editing this article when you are gone and a sysop who is not "too involved in this article" and does not know "next to nothing about Islam" tries to moderate this debate. Clearly, you are not that kind of sysop. There is one thing I do want you to do, which I did request above if you actually bothered to read what I wrote. And that is, that I recommened that you immediately file an RFC re this article and escelate the matter to the highest possible administrative level. -- anonymous


 * Well, "Ta bu shi da yu?" Have you filed the RFC? Or is the only concrete thing you can contribute to this article is to encourage religious apologists to carry out revert wars? I think you have been avoiding filing an RFC on this article for so long because the article was locked in the state preferred by OneGuy, Alberuni and Mustafaa (the bulwark of the Islamist apologia cabal that was carrying out said revert war).


 * Just noticed you replied to yourself (!). Please, feel free to file an RFC. There should be nothing stopping you. I had actually filed one before, but removed it later. Check the RFC history. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:08, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

death to critics
So instead of 'every' earlier, now you are giving isolated cases, such as Theo van Gogh, Vincent van Gogh, Rashad Khalifa, and Irshad Manji who received death threats or were killed by anonymous unknown radicals. What happened to every claim? Anyway, to prove your case that Islam sanctions death sentence to its critics, you can't just post the names of isolated cases where people received death threats from anonymous radicals! You need to post the names of prominent Islamic scholars and universities such as Al Azhar (not isolated radicals) who issued the death sentence against these people. The fatwa against Rushdie was rejected by Al Azhar and all countries except Iran. So all you need to do is post Islamic sites (not anti-Islamic sites and isolated radical sites) who issued the death sentence against Menji, Rashad Khalifa, Theo van Gogh, etc. Bring your proof. Just throwing the names of isolated cases where someone received death threats from isolated anonymous radical doesn't prove Islam sanctions death sentence to it's critics! After 9/11, many Muslims and mosques received threats and some Muslims/Sikhs were even killed. That doesn't mean the US sanctions death to all American Muslims. You are such a pathetic joke, dude! Posting isolated cases where people received death threats from anonymous radicals doesn't prove a thing. We don't even know for sure who killed Rashad. You added even his name. You need to post the names of Muslim scholars who issues death sentence against, say, Rashad, Vincent van Gogg, and Menji. Then you need to post evidence that this was consensus among Muslim scholars on each of these cases. Without that, you don't have any case, and you are refuted once again OneGuy 09:33, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "Anyway, to prove your case that Islam sanctions death sentence to its critics, you can't just post the names of isolated cases where people received death threats from anonymous radicals! You need to post the names of prominent Islamic scholars and universities such as Al Azhar (not isolated radicals) who issued the death sentence against these people. The fatwa  against Rushdie was rejected by Al Azhar and all countries" <--- these anonymous radicals represent the sentiments felt by their factions in ISlam -they represent their interpretation of Islam. I also provided examples of critics who were murdered by MUHAMMAD himself. Al-Azhar is not a higher authority than Muhammad.


 * No, you have only provided two stories in Ibn Ishaq about Muhammad that are rejected by Muslims, such as rejected here. Al Azhar and Muslim scholars will interpret what Muhammad did and what Islamic law says, not an anti-Islamic bigot like you. You made a bold claim that in Islam critics are to be to be killed. I refuted that by giving examples that contradict that. You then claimed that every critic received a death sentence. You were refuted again. You then posted a list of isolated critics such as Rushdie, Menji, Rashad Khalifa, Theo van Gogh, etc, who received death threats from anonymous radicals. That's like posting (a much longer list) of Muslims/Sikhs who received death threats or were killed after 9/11, and claiming that American law allows Muslims to be killed. You were refuted again.  You need to provide names of prominent well known Muslim scholars (not anti-Islam sites or isolated radicals) for each of these cases and prove that they issued the death sentence. After that, you need to provide proof that that judgement was a consensus among Muslims scholars. You didn't do that. You were refuted once again. Since you are an anti-Islamic bigot, you can't just claim that Muhammad did this or that or Islamic law says this or that and expect that claim to be inserted in Encyclopedia. You need to provide proof. You couldn't because you were wrong. Try again, dude. You have failed quite miserably here OneGuy 03:40, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, whe opinons of secular governments are irrelevant - of course Musilm countries rejected the death fatwa against Rushdie, but this was due to international politics, not due to religion. Also, as stated before, Ayatollah Khomenie was a Shiah CLERIC. The only way to be an Ayatollah is to be born as one. Aside from being the dictator or IRan, Khomenie was also the spiritial and religious leader of huge numbers of Sha'ias around the world. Khomenie wrote many fatwas and books about Islam. His most famous fatwa, of course, calls for the murder of Salman Rushdie. Now Al-Azhar - a SUNNI university -- SUPPOSEDLY rejected KHomenei's teachings. This does not mean by any means prove that Al-Azhar was right, and Khomenie was wrong. The fact that KHomenie was a shiah cleric, while Al-Azhar is a sunni university is also a gaping hole in this argument. You have no even provided a SOURCE for this supposed fatwa from Al-Azhar, refuting Khomenie's fatwa. PLEASE SOURCE YOUR CLAIMS.


 * Sure, here: "Sheikh Mohammad Said Tantawi, imam of Al-Azhar, Sunni Islam's highest authority, has said writer Salman Rushdie should be punished, not killed for insulting Islam, an Egyptian newspaper reported this week. "


 * here: "At the Islamic Conference of March 1989, 44 out of 45 members states unanimously rejected Ayatullah's fatwa." OneGuy 04:30, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * "After 9/11, many Muslims and mosques received threats and some Muslims/Sikhs were even killed. That doesn't mean the US sanctions death to all American Muslims." <--- I never said that all Muslims sanction the death of all critics of Islam. You are chaning my argument - I am speaking about the traditional, conservative factions within Islam, and you are accusing me of speaking about all Muslims, even though I have been very clear who it is I'm speaking about.


 * See above. You cannot just claim that traditional Islam says this or that about a topic. You cannot just post stories from Ibn Ishaq about Muhammad and claim from that in Islamic law critics are to be killed. Muslims will interpret Islamic law, not anti-Islamic bigot like you. Don't just post names of isolated people who received death threats and claim that that is Islamic law. Post proof that prominent main stream Muslim scholars (not radicals) issued the death sentence in these cases. You didn't do that. OneGuy 03:48, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * "Posting isolated cases where people received death threats from anonymous radicals doesn't prove a thing." <--- these are not isolated cases. Such incidents are widespread. They have ideological, legal and historical precedent in Islam.


 * "We don't even know for sure who killed Rashad." <--- maybe you don't. Wikipedia and other more reliable sources do know that he was stabbed to death in his mosque, by a MUslim radical.


 * "You need to post the names of Muslim scholars who issues death sentence" <--- Very well, I will provide evidence from a Muslim scholar that Islamic law calls for the death of critics of Islam, in a couple days. NOte that the well-known Islamic laws regarding apostasy prove beyond a doubt that anyone is born a MUSLIM and is a critic of Islam must be killed for sure. This is true for non-Muslim critics as well, as the above discussion demonstrates, but I will fulfill your request and quote a scholar regarding this point in ISlamic law. -- anonymous


 * Of course, but don't just post isolated radical or isolated scholar. Not only you will have to post more than one name, you will also have to prove that that is consensus among Muslim scholars. OneGuy 04:33, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * "You are such a pathetic joke, dude!" <--- please read Wikipedia policy aginst Personal Attacks. I will be filing an RFC against you on this matter. -- Pename


 * to mr. anonymous or mr. Penome,

Christianity, Shamanism, Buddhism and every other religion or ideology I can think of has been used by people as a political tool. For instance, the work karma has been used by the Hindus to discriminate other so called castes. It can also be used on a personal level where it functions as a tool to cleanse oneself of whatever happened in the past in prepration for meditation. (its functions in more or less the same way as "forgiveness" does for Christians). And the word is used as to denote the law of cause and effect. Islam too can be used alltogether in a negative way and one of the tools to accomplish this is by using the word "Jihad", as you quite rightly pointed out to the rest of us. That does not mean that we don't have to discuss the positive meaning of the word "Jihad". OneGuy is right in saying that you have to use sources in order to bring forth your argument. That is namely for us (i.e. the rest of the team working on this) the only way that we can distinguish your own opinion about Islam, "Jihad" etc. and the object truth which we can verify. My own opinion is: the word "Jihad" to an outsider (i.e. a non-Muslim) is generally understood as "Islamic holy war". To Muslims, the word "Jihad" is a word that has shades of meaning as one of us pointed out to us with "eco-Jihad". Therefore I am in favour of describing "Jihad" as struggle while at the same time describing the negative meaning it has among many Westerners. (Exactly as it is done with the word karma: "Many have likened karma to a moral banking system, a credit and debit of good and bad." See wikipedia on karma) Describing "Jihad" as Islamic Holy war might have the negative consequence that we describe Islam in a negative way. This is not a political website but an encyclopedia. This is the last contribution I make to this subject. I will visit these pages now and then to see what you progress you guys make ;-)" Good luck.

Wereldburger758


 * To Mr. Wereldburger758 (from a totally unrelated user) - while Islam can be used in a way which you classify as negative (please see the articles on Eurocentrism and POV on why you shouldn't use "negative" and "positive" in this case), this article is not about whitewashing Islamic holy war. If Jihad has meanings that correspond to Western conservative Christian values (which you would call "positive"), they can be mentioned, but not at the cost of omitting the anti-Western conservative Christian stuff (which you would call "negative"). And as I continually point out, this is an encyclopedia article, it doesn't present anything in any light, it just states the facts - facts that might be "positive" or "negative".


 * "Christianity, Shamanism, Buddhism and every other religion or ideology I can think of has been used by people as a political tool. " <--- how many people have been executed for criticizing Christianity, Shamanism, or Budhism in recent times? The only religion that has historically done this is Christianity, with its blasphemy laws. Islam is very much like Christinaity, only Christianity has been largely reformed, while Islam remains more or less the same as it was since it began. -- anonymous


 * "Describing "Jihad" as Islamic Holy war might have the negative consequence that we describe Islam in a negative way. This is not a political website but an encyclopedia." <--- and that sums up the POV of the Islamist cabal of Wikipedia and its foolish allies. Jihad, as everyone who has heard the word knows, IS Islamic "holy" war. That's simply how it is. Islam was founded by a warrior prophet, and his followers were warriors, and as warriors they conqueored, assasinated, pillaged, etc. That's just the natural consequence of being a medieval warrior. Many Muslims believe that they must continue fighting the Jihad even today. Whether this reflects negatively or posistively on Islam is besides the point. Wikipedia is not supposed to be whitewashing Islam and tryign to portray it in an entirely poistive light. There are aspects of Jihad that reflect positively on Islam, and there are aspects of Jihad that reflect negatively on ISlam. So be it. Just because certain individuals want to suppress all information about Islam that reflects negatively on the religion does not mean that such suppression of information is justified. -- anon

''' ONEGUY: YOU HAVE DELETED MY COMMENTS IN THIS DISCUSSION SECTION. IT'S BAD ENOUGH THAT YOU GO AROUND SENSELESSLY DELETING CONTENT FROM THE ARTICLE. NOW YOU HAVE TAKEN THE LIBERTY OF DELETING MY STATEMENTS FROM THE DISCUSSION PAGE. YOUR BEHAVIOUR IS NOW COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE (IGNORING YOUR FALSE ACCUSATIONS, YOUR PERSONAL ATTACKS, ETC). THEREFORE I AM ENDING THIS CONVERSATION.''' I will no longer be communicating with you. I have not the time to argue with Muslim extremists who exhibit such a degree of uncivility. -- Pename


 * I deleted your comments that were already on the page on top earlier. You cut and pasted them here too. I started the new section because of clutter above. Keep it clean. You are the one who removed my first response on top of  "death to critic" by moving it below and adding your cluttering cut and past on top of the section. Don't do that OneGuy


 * I created the new section below so it will be readable. Why did you make a mess of that section with all the "::::" in your first response of cut and past from above? What's the point of posting here when no one can even read what we talking about? If no one reads it, why are we wasting out time anyway? Keep it clean, simple, and redeable. Don't ramble on an on and clutter this section. OneGuy 04:42, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * He's also been deleting my comments. Ah well.


 * Please post evidence by going to history link and posting the URL where I deleted your comments OneGuy 16:37, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't really care. If Wikipedia maintains some sort of history, it's _somewhere_ in there, but I'm too lazy to go searching for it.

Concerning Islamic Apologia Over Islam's Laws Against Blasphemy
Both Judaism and Christianity have historically punished blasphemy, usually with execution. It comes as no surprise then that Islam also treats blasphemy with capital punishment. That is to say, critics of Islam are to be put to death according to the traditional mainstream Islamic law called shar'ia. Nevertheless, Islamic apologists have waged an unrelenting campaign to completely deny this fact and to hide it from the wikipedia public by engaging in revert wars to delete any mention of this fact from an article, by flooding the discussion pages with false accusations and personal attacks, and even evading the whole debate by starting new sections on it and abruptly abandoning old ones, and then deleting my comments when I tried to move my relevant comments to the new section. There is no point in directly engaging these uncivil extremists. I am simply going to post all the relevant information in this section, and will not be engaging in debate with the apologists (particularly OneGuy, Mustafaa, and Alberuni). Having said that, here is the data:

Following is a reassertion of the facts regarding Islam's historical, religious position and contemporary position on the subject of executing those who publicly criticize or ridicule Islam, mostly copying from a deleted section of the Jihad article :


 * However, there are some crimes which the Islamic law concidered to be worthy of death, which non-Muslims would concider to be fundamental rights or freedoms. One example is the freedom of speech. Muhammad considered poetry against his new religion to be a form of "creating disorder in the land" and silenced a number of great poets of his day by having them murdered. In medieval Arabia, oral poetry was the primary medium by which history, political discourse, propoganda and religion were transmitted. One such silenced poetess was Asma bint Marwan, who was stabbed to death in her sleep at Muhammad's command. Another such poet was Abu 'Afak. In a similar but more contemporary spirit, "Theo van Gogh (47), a Dutch filmmaker who had made a movie critical of some aspects of Islamic society and culture, has been shot dead in an Amsterdam street on November 2 [2004]. The late great-grand-nephew of famous Dutch painter Vincent van Gogh had received many death threats after releasing Submission last August, a short film detailing the treatment of Muslim women. He shrug off the threats, saying there was nothing offensive in his movie. The killer, a 26-year-old Moroccan residing in Holland, was wearing a long beard and Islamic garb when he shot and stabbed van Gogh in broad daylight. He was arrested after a shootout with the police." [ http://www.amren.com /mtnews/archives/2004/11/dutch_police_ar.php 3] Another famous incident of this kind was the death fatwa against Salman Rushdie, issued by Ayatollah Khomeini, in which Khomeini called upon any Muslim in the world to murder Salman Rushdie, or anyone else associated with the publishing of a book in which Rushdie blasphemed Islam. Today, many publicly known Western critics of Islam receive a constant stream of death threats from Islamic fanatics seeking to silence them, and have to employ constant the service of body guards (Canadian TV producer and publicly known Muslim critic of orthodox Islam, Irshad Manji, is sometimes cited as the "new Salman Rushdie" and employs the service of a number of Israeli trained body guards), while those who cannot afford body guards often write under a pen name for fear of their personal safety. In the Muslim world, those who dare to publicly criticize Islam are usually executed or imprisoned by their governments, under laws against "spreading disorder through the land" and apostasy (a crime punishable by death in Islam).


 * The incidents surrounding of Rushdie, van Gogh, and Manji are the most contemporary and most well known. There are other obscure characters who fall victim to this pattern of Islamist extremists murdering not only critics or dissidents of Islam, but also those whom they feel are heretics, such as Dr. Rashad Khalifa, Ph.D., a Western Muslim who was widely concidered a heretic by mainstream Muslims, due to his rejection of all hadiths, and his attempts to apply computational numerology to the Qur'an. On January 31, 1990, Rashad Khalifa was stabbed to death in his Tuscon, Arizona mosque by an Islamist extremist who objected to Khalifa's blasphemous preachings on Islam. So far, only contemporary historical incidents have been discussed. One of the most famous non-contemporary executions of critics of Islam were the execution of the Marytrys of  Córdoba, in the city of Córdoba, Spain between the years AD 850 and 859:


 * "The city of Córdoba was the setting for an unusual historical drama that unfolded between the years 850 and 859, when forty-eight Christians [mostly Christian priests] were decapitated for religious offenses against Islam. More striking than the number of executions were the peculiar circumstances surrounding them. For one thing, as the sources unambiguously demonstrate, the majority of the victims deliberately invoked capital punishment by publicly blaspheming Muhammad and disparaging Islam." ( Christian Martyrs in Muslim Spain by Kenneth Baxter Wolf, Introduction)


 * By deliberately invoking capital punishment on themselves in this way, the 48 "Martyrs of Córdoba" ensured that it would be recorded in the historical record that such was the usual practice of the medieval Islamic empire. Liberal movements within Islam reject the assasination or execution of public critics of Islam, though the historical and religious record suggests otherwise.


 * Other such incidents include:
 * Naguib Mahfouz, the elderly and much-celebrated Nobel Prize laureate for literature, was seriously injured in Cairo when an assailant knifed him in the neck, presumably in revenge for an allegorical novel written decades earlier.
 * "...In the Hague, 5,000 Muslims gathered in front of the Ministry of Justice, burned imitation copies of The Satanic Verses along with pictures of the author, and called for Rushdie's death. Nearly 2,000 Muslims protested noisily in Manchester on February 24 and 10,000 in New York City the next day, protesting outside the closed offices of Viking. Also on the 25th, 1,000 Muslims marched in Oslo; the next day, 2,000 marched in Copenhagen. The protests in Scandinavia were the first of such size in a decade or more. Back in England, 3,000 Muslims protested the Rushdie book in Halifax on March 3. On the 4th, demonstrations took place in Sheffield and Derby, complete with book burnings and chants for Rushdie's death. On the 6th, another 3,000 Muslims marched in Derby and burned copies of The Satanic Verses. And so on..."
 * "...Then there was the atmosphere of intimidation. A wide assortment of targets were anonymously threatened with violence, leading to additional police guards being posted here and there around the globe. Politicians requiring extra security included: in Canada, the minister of revenue and the foreign minister; in Britain, the prime minister, foreign secretary and home secretary; and in France, the president of the National Assembly. Artists were publicly threatened in France, Nigeria, and Egypt. The British television interviewer Peter Sissons asked an Iranian diplomat, "Do you understand that we don't regard it as civilized to kill people for their opinions?" Muslim zealots found this an "insulting" question and threatened Sisson's life, so he too had a police guard attacked. A public reading from The Satanic Verses in Austria had to be canceled due to telephoned bomb threats--one of which was traced back to the Iranian embassy in Vienna. Followers of Khomeini also issued dozens of threats to publishing houses and book stores throughout the West.
 * "In Britain, several Muslim leaders endorsed Khomeini's decision [calling for the assasination of Salman Rushdie on account of his blasphemy against Islam], and some even swore to carry out the death sentence. The Union of Islamic Students' Associations in Europe issued a statement offering its services to Khomeini. Others were yet more outspoken, uttering statements that left the rest of the population aghast. "I think we should kill Salman Rushdie's whole family," Faruq Mughal screamed as he emerged from a West London mosque. "His body should be chopped into little pieces and sent to all Islamic countries as a warning to those who insult our religion." A London property developer told reporters, "If I see him, I will kill him straight away. Take my name and address. One day I will kill him." Iqbal Sacranic of the U.S. Action Committee on Islamic Affairs announced that "death, perhaps, is a bit too easy for him..his mind must be tormented for the rest of his life unless he asks for forgiveness to Almighty Allah." Back in Bradford, the secretary of the Mosque Council, Sayed Abdul Quddus, said that Rushdie "deserves hanging." Parvez Akhtar, a financial adviser in Bradford, told a reporter that "if Salman Rushdie came here, he would be torn to pieces. He is a dead man." Newspaper reports filled with such statements made it appear that Khomeini's edict enjoyed support among Muslims of Britain, regardless of age, sex, social status and religiosity"
 * "Most striking, several prominent European converts to Islam endorsed the death edict [issued against Salman Rushdie], much enhancing its respectability. These included the French intellectual Vincent Mansour (ne Vincent Monteil) and the Swiss journalist Ahmed Huber. Cat Stevens, the former rock singer who converted to Islam in 1977 and changed his name to Yusuf al-Islam, told Muslim students in Surrey, "He [Rushdie] must be killed. The Qur'an makes it clear--if someone defames the prophet, then he must die." Islam reiterated this view on television two months later, saying that is Rushdie turned up on his doorstep asking for help, "I'd try to phone the Ayatollah Khomeini and tell him exactly where this man is..."


 * The "Media Guide to Islam" writtne by the Center for Integration and Improvement of Journalism at San Francisco State University confirms that blasphemy is punishable by death in Islamic law:


 * "Muslims regard heresy and blasphemy (ilhad in Arabic) as very serious transgressions, tantamount to religious treason. Rejecting or defaming Islam, the Prophet Muhammad, other prophets, and the Quran fall into this category. Some Muslim nations -- Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, for example -- have criminal laws dictating the death penalty for apostates, heretics and blasphemers ... Citing shari’a, or Islamic law, Muslim religious courts have sentenced those considered guilty of blasphemy or heresy to death Two well-publicized recent cases in which death penalties were levied, but not carried out, involved the novelists Salman Rushdie and Taslima Nasareen."


 * Thus it is that groups of Muslim fundamentalists believe that Jihad involves assasinating those who criticize Islam or blaspheme it. Of course not all Muslims would support this view, particularly it is opposed by Liberal movements within Islam. Nevertheless, violent Islamist extremist groups find justification for such assasination hits in Islamic literature, dating as far back as 150 years after Muhammad's death, and a substantial segmenet of Muslim communities, from Holland to Pakistan, support punishing blasphemy against Islam with capital punishment.

-- A brief response to the above rambling:

(1) You started out with the claim that every critic received a death threat. Now you changed critic to blasphemy. There is a difference between honest criticism and vulgar blasphemy. Anyway, keep reading the rest of points....


 * This scares me. No, this scares the hell out of me. It's ok to kill people for vulgar blasphemy?


 * Sign your comments please. I am atheist. I don't believe that it's ok to kill people for religious  reasons. Though I would say that stuff such as cursing, throwing pork in mosques (as happens in India and leads to Hindu-Muslim riots and death of dozens), hate literature, or things done deliberately to hurt people or to incite violence physically or psychologically probably do need some kind of punishment. I only pointed out that the guy is shifting his position as we continue the dialog. He started out with "criticism" and changed that to blasphemy. Everyone knows "blasphemy" is a crime according to the Bible (death) and traditional Islam (though interpretation and application vary). Initially he claimed 'critic' and then changed it to 'blasphemy'. OneGuy 10:10, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not arguing against him, and I'm not arguing against you. If, after changing his argument, it became valid, then by God (or Allah, or Darwin, or G-d, or whatever), it's valid. Let facts speak for themselves. (This, incidentally, is the reason I post anonymously. That way, I'm not a Christian, I'm not a Jew, I'm not an Atheist, and I'm not a Moslem.) And for one, whether it's "ok" or not is completely irrelevant. I don't really care about how you feel about freedom of speech or restricting it. Anyway, one man's blasphemy is another man's religion .. you do know that Moslems consider many of the fundamental tenets of Christianity and Judaism (for example) to be blasphemy?


 * Whether you post anonymously or not, sign your comments. Muslims consider some tenets of Christianity, such as trinity, as "shirk." If that is same as blasphemy (I don't know), then that further refutes your argument since millions of Christians live in Muslim countries but are not being killed. Anyway, as I said, this is open to interpretation. Some of the behavior like cursing, publicly desecrating the Qur'an to incite riots, hate literature, or things done deliberately to incite violence do need some kind of punishment. You didn't answer that part. OneGuy 23:35, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Please clarify what you mean by "signing". For example, Christians believe that Jesus was the Son of God, which is pretty blasphemous from an Islamic perspective. And please, please do not use the example of "millions of Christians living in Moslem countries", as the actions of Moslem majorities toward their Christian minorities have historically (and I mean in the last few decades) been .. not very good. "Cursing"? No, I don't think people should be punished for cursing. I don't think people should be punished for desecrating any book. If a riot is started in that case, the rioters are responsible for the violence. "Hate literature" has been, in recent years, used to refer to everything from the Bible and Qur'an to Mein Kampf, please clarify. Things done deliberately to incite violence is too ambiguous, please clarify.


 * Sign by &#x7e;&#x7e;&#x7e;&#x7e; after your comments. If you claim that the punishment for blasphemy is death in Islam, and Christian are blasphemous, then why are they not being killed? There is a contradiction there. I don't think anything I said above was ambiguous. There are clearly things that can be classified as deliberately provoking incitement such as publicly desecrating the Qur'an to incite riots, throwing pig in mosques during prayer (as happened in India), hate literature (as Nazi literature against Jews was and similar literature against Muslims would be). If you think that is ambiguous, then I cannot help you OneGuy 09:12, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * (Why do I need to sign my posts?) You're not making sense here. Christians aren't being killed? 9/11? The pogroms you hear of every week or so? The genocides? There is a contradiction here? You know, I agree entirely. If you're talking about literature that incites to genocide against Moslems ("as Nazi literature against Jews was"), then please don't say "hate speech". I've actually heard that stating that one doesn't believe in Islam can be "hate speech" ("Islam is a false religion"). What you were talking there is material that incites to genocide (which is a small portion of all hate speech).. whether or not that should be banned is a long and difficult issue, which I am not going to start discussing here.


 * And 9/11 happened because of Christianity? Instead of killing Christians in their own countries, or some other country, these guys chose the US because of Christianity? And you hear this every week? Like where? Post example from this week (and don't post Iraq or any other political/military war). Did these 9/11 terrorist claim that they attacked the US on 9/11 because of Christianity? Post proof for that too. You have quickly began losing your credibility here, like Pename. OneGuy 16:33, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * If the news that are flowing in every day about "Moslem-Christian riots", terrorist strikes, Iraqi insurgents, genocide of Christians here or there, etc. have failed to convince you (do they even report that stuff on Al-Jazeera?), obviously, I can't help here. You've either decided what you think without consulting the facts, or you're practicing Taqiyya. I suggest that you don't make any modifications to the article, as you're obviously biased.


 * I am biased and you and Pename are what? Only someone who is either a shameless liar (I suspect that's the case here) or doesn't know what he is talking about would make a statement that 9/11 terrorists attacked the US because Islam calls for killing Christians. Post the evidence for that shameless lie, not by citing isolated attacks in a war zone like Iraq but by quoting the Qur'an and prominent Muslim scholars. We will see who is practicing "Taqiyya" here. it's you OneGuy 08:16, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Please see the definition of "bias" somewhere (hey, I know this one site..) Forming an opinion not based on facts but emotions (like you) is different from forming an informed opinion (like me). And no, I refuse to post any part of an Islamic text, because they really have no relevance here. Islamic doctrine has been debated by Islamic scholars for what, 1400 years, and they're still far from agreeing (actually, they seem to be diverging yet farther) what the texts mean. What is relevant is that Moslems are being told by their local Moslem preachers that Islam commands the killing of unbelievers, that they've done so in the past, and that they're doing it today.

(2) Yes, Pakistan is one of very few (if not the only) Muslim country that has blasphemy law. Some people (most of them Muslims and a few Christians) did get imprisoned (and some still are) by that law, but none of them ever was put to death by the state. That's a challenge. None of them was ever killed by the state (despite the law). This example weakens your argument, not prove it.

(3) You repeated a couple of weak stories from Ibn ishaq about Muhammad killing poets. These stories are rejected by Muslims.see this. Anti-Islamic bigot like you cannot claim that Muhammad did this or that and so this is Islamic law. Muslim scholars will interpret stories about Muhammad and derive Islamic law, not anti-Islamic bigots.

(4) Yusuf Islam is a singer, not a scholar of Islam. Moreover, recently he retracted the comments about Rushdie he made in 1989 (when he was still comparatively new Muslim). And Al-Azhar "is opposed to the fatwa issued against Salman Rushdie." and Islamic Conference of March 1989, "44 out of 45 members states unanimously rejected Ayatullah's fatwa." By bringing up Rushdie, you have actually refuted yourself. Thank you very much. This has conclusively debunked you.


 * The 44 member states that unanimously rejected it aren't even worth mentioning. Any person with a brain and/or heart rejects it - the one that didn't deserves mention.


 * We shouldn't mention that most Muslims rejected the fatwa? Why, because that makes not all Muslims look radicals? Whatever.  And what does this have to do with Jihad anyway? OneGuy 10:10, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, when anti-Islamic editor is using Rushdie as an example (as clearly is his motive) to argue that Islamic punishment for "critics" is death, then clearly it needs be mentioned. Plus, this topic has nothing to do with Jihad; it belongs to blasphemy article. Why do you want to stuff everything in this article?OneGuy 23:35, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * "Anti-Islamic" is an ambiguous term that covers everyone from skinheads to all non-Moslems, please clarify. I agree it doesn't belong in the Jihad article, though. (Which doesn't exactly refute my argument, but makes it irrelevant in any case.)


 * Why is it ambiguous ? Is anti-Semite ambiguous too? If not, why is this ambiguous? Anti-Semite is a person who is hostile against Jews. If such a person edits Judaism article, there would be problems. That's what we have here in Pename. An anti-Islamic editor with zero credibility and integrity. Where is the ambiguity? OneGuy 09:01, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Because, basically, anti-Islamic is being used as a slur (I think it's better than "Islamophobe" though, at least it doesn't imply a mental disorder). Anti-semite is an excellent example of another word which can't be used in rational conversations any more. Both words have, thanks to liberal liberal use (hehe) become, well, meaningless. They mean "everything except Islam" and "everything except Jews/Judaism/Israel/whatever" (respectively). As for Pename, I haven't been monitoring his writing closely (and still don't understand what you mean by "anti-Islamic"). However, if we're talking about the truth, "credibility" and "integrity" here, I'd say you have more of a problem with it than him. This article shouldn't portray anything in either a "negative" or "positive" light. Moral relativism, not "factual relativism" is called for in an encyclopedia article. I still haven't seen you admit to one case where Moslems have done something "negative" because of their religion. Why? You seem to have decided that Islam is without "negative" sides. We shouldn't assert that Islam is "good" or "evil", but if a certain fact makes it seem such (to you), it still can't be omitted. Let the reader decide.


 * I don't see anti-Islamic and anti-Semtic as ambiguous words. The words mean a person who is hostile against Jews/Muslims. Plus, if you think I have more problems with credibility than Pename, this coming from an anonymous user who claims 9/11 happened because Islam allows Christians to be killed doesn't impress me. OneGuy 16:33, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Hooray for you if you see them as clear terms, and hooray for you if you've never seen them being used as slurs. I, for one, have been called both an anti-semite and a Zionist in the same conversation. Why don't you just say what you mean by these words? Right, you can't, because they're just insults.


 * I defined the words several times. Anti-Semite is a person who is hostile against the Jews and anti-Islamic is a person who is hostile against Muslims (like someone who claims 9/11 terrorists attacked the US because Islam calls for killing Christians. LOL). There is nothing ambiguous about the definition. If you have a problem with comprehension, that's not my problem. OneGuy 07:59, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Ah, now I understand what you mean. Yes, it is very worrying how anti-Islamic sentiment is spreading in the Moslem world. Every day, we hear some anti-Islamic Moslem preacher say that Islam commands the killing of infidels.

(4) You repeated the isolated cases such as Manji, Rashad Khalifa, Theo van Gogh, etc, who received death threats from anonymous radicals. That's like posting a much longer list of Muslims/Sikhs who received death threats or were killed after 9/11, and claiming that American law allows Muslims to be killed. You are truly a ... I won't repeat it again :)) Post the views of prominent well known Muslim scholars (not anti-Islamic sites or isolated radicals) for each of these cases separately one by one. After that, you need to provide proof that that judgement was a consensus among Muslims scholars in each of these case. You didn't do that. Again, you have failed quite miserably OneGuy 10:48, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * "You started out with the claim that every critic received a death threat. Now you changed critic to blasphemy. There is a difference between honest criticism and vulgar blasphemy." <--- I am forced to counter OneGuy's false accusation, though I do not wish to engage him in debate. I never stated that EVERY critic of Islam recieved a death threat - this is a false accusation that OneGuy keeps repeating (note that false accusations are explicitly against Wikipedia policy). Also, it is not difficult to see how criticism and blasphemy are synonymous. Though OneGuy's refferal to blasphemy as "vulgar" is very interesting. Suddenly his tone has changed - blasphemy is "vulgar" and somehow different from "criticism," says OneGuy. It seems as if he has now changed plans and is going to defend decapitating people for "vulgar blasphemy." -- Pename


 * I seem to remember that either you said most or every critic. Even if you said most, that's still a lie. Yes, there is a big difference between blasphemy and scholarly criticism. Blasphemy can mean several things, including things such as cursing God/Allah/Muhammad or his wives, burning or desecrating Qur'an publicly, throwing pig/pork in mosques, etc. Scholarly and honest criticism is not necessarily blasphemy. Anyway, as I said above, you failed to prove any of your claim. You posted some isolated list of people who received threats from anonymous unknown people. I can post a much bigger list of Muslims/Sikhs who received death threats or were abused in the US. That won't prove anything. Only bigots or people who lack rational thinking resort to such weak arguments, like you also did with your  "Timeline" (a collection of everything that you  thought would show Islam negatively and called it a "military history" - what a joke). This is bigotry, not something that belongs in Encyclopedia. OneGuy 15:01, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is a big difference between blasphemy and scholarly criticism. This is a first time I hear this from a Moslem. (Point: Islamic scholars do not differentiate between the two.)


 * Even though I told you I am not Muslim, you repeated it. Anyway, I don't mind. Ad hominem comments won't refute what I wrote. As for your positive assertion that Islamic scholars do not differentiate, you failed to provide proof. Your claim is easily refuted by the fact that thousands of critics have written books on Islam. How many Muslim scholars issued a death sentence on say, Michael Cook, a scholar and critic of Islam? Bring your proof. Rushdie was an exception. His book was not criticism but supposedly "blasphemous." Even in that case Al Azhar rejected Iran's fatwa, as did 44 out 45  countries. In other words, you have failed to prove anything here  OneGuy 23:35, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * cough*Only bigots or people who lack rational thinking resort to such weak arguments*cough* Anyway, that's not relevant. Well, I've never seen an Islamic scholar differentiate, and neither do any Islamic texts seem to mention it.. but as you said earlier, that's not the point of this article. My claim is hardly "easily refuted" by the fact that there are lots of critics of Islam who have received death threats. It would be if I had said that "all critics", which I didn't. Please clarify your clumsy, bile-filled assertion that I have "failed to prove anything here"?


 * There are a hundreds of western critics. You (if you are Pename -- sign your name by &#x7e;&#x7e;&#x7e;&#x7e) only posted a few examples who received death threats from some anonymous unknown radical. That's not "lots of." Plus, where is the evidence that well known Muslim scholars issued the death fatwa against each of these critics? You did not post the evidence. Rushdie was the only example given where a death fatwa was issued. Al Azhar and 44 out 45 countries rejected Khominie's fatwa. If that's not "failed to prove anything," then what is it? OneGuy 08:51, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * (I'm not Pename.) I'm not arguing (err, "debating") about this with you. This is not relevant to the Jihad article, and I don't feel like arguing with you for sport (mainly because you seem to have trouble distinguishing between 'all' and 'some'). Let's mention the incidents (or rather, create a list page, as there's a huge many of these cases) instead of ambiguosly saing "a lot" (as I would) "infinitely" (as Pename likely would) or "none" (as you would).


 * You first made this positive statement: (Point: Islamic scholars do not differentiate between the two. You also agreed generally with Pename in all your comments. After I refuted these assertions, now you are claiming that I have a problem with comprehending "some"  and "all"? huh? OneGuy 16:33, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Which assertions exactly did you refute? You're claiming that because all critics/blasphemers didn't receive death threats, then no critics/blasphemers received death threats. You haven't proven anything.


 * I refuted your baseless claim, Islamic scholars do not differentiate between the two by pointing out that you have not provided a name of single Islamic scholar who has issued a death sentence on a Western critic. The only example where the death sentence was issued, i,.e. Rushdie (whose book was a fiction not criticism),  was rejected by Al Azhar scholars and 44 out of 45 Islamic countries. If you can't see how that refutes your basless claim, then there is nothing more I can do for you OneGuy 07:59, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Whoa, for someone who's bashed my comprehension, you sure have a way with logic. Please read the comment again. Islamic scholars do not differentiate between the two. There is no Islamic text that says "blasphemy of Islam is forbidden, but fair criticism is OK".

OneGuy, of course, is right; but this whole argument is irrelevant here, because killing blasphemers is not jihad to begin with, and is not relevant to an article on jihad. - Mustafaa 01:44, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Assasinations are part of Jihad. It's pretty interesting that sometimes you claim that Jihad is ANY kind of religious struggle at all, and sometimes you claim that carrying out assasinations commanded by Islam are not part of Jihad. -- Pename


 * Do I now? So who claims that assassinations are Jiha1d? - Mustafaa 02:35, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * According to you and your Islamic apologist friends here, taking care of one's parents and studying Islamic law are forms of "Jihad," i.e. you say that a discussion on taking care of one's parents is relevant to an encylopedia on Jihad, and at the same time you have the nerve to suggest that assasination hits carried out by Islamist militants at the command of prominent Muslim clerics (such as the assasination of van Gogh, or the assasination of Asma bint Marwan, whom Muslims traditionally believe was a poetess and mother of six children that Muhammad himself had assasinated. The Muslim apologetic arguments being made on this page are becoming more and more outrageously ridiculous. Assasinations sanctioned by Islam and carried out by militant Islamists are clearly part of Jihad. Any brief survey of popular militant Islamist literature or history will reveal that assasination is widely concidered amongst all who ever engaged in Jihad to be a part of Jihad, as well as the classical scholars and jurists of Islam. Assasinations are a part of Islam, and many examples from Muhammad's own life can be cited. Assasinations for the purpose of silencing critics are a special case of assasinations, which are a special case of Jihad. The silencing of critics is therefore a subject that deserves thorough discussion under the category of Jihad. -- Pename


 * There are hadiths that say that "taking care of one's parents and studying Islamic law are forms of Jihad." It's not according to "us." And you claim to be a former Muslim? LOL. Even if that story about Muhammad is true (and it's rejected by Muslims here. You need to post Islamic site that accepts the story), where is your proof that this assasination was called "Jihad"? Do radical Islamists call assassination of Western critics Jihad? Post proof. We don't even know who killed, say, Rashad Khalifa. He was killed by some anonymous unknown person. It's speculated that the killer was a radical Muslim, but there is no proof. Moreover, I asked you to post evidence by citing Islamic or neutral sites (not anti-Islamic sites) to show that death fatwa against each of these critic was issued by prominent Muslim scholars, and that there was a consensus among the scholars. You failed to post that evidence. Given that Al Azhar and 44 out of 45 countries rejected the death fatwa against Rushdie, I can say thar you have been debunked thoroughly. OneGuy 08:30, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

NOTE: OneGuy claims that he is not a Muslim. As a former Muslim myself, and as someone who has spent a lifetime in Muslim countries, I say that OneGuy exhibits every sign of being a Muslim. He has recently started claiming to be an atheist, but I doubt that this is true. Also note that some Muslims believe they can ethically lie about their religious beliefs under certain circumstances, such as if they or their Muslim community is under duress, or if it is done to decieve an enemy at war in order gain a strategic advantage. -- Pename


 * Recently? I never claimed to be anything other than atheist. Long before you got here, on Talk Jesus another POV pusher accused me to be a fundamentalist Christian because I agreed that most historians accept Jesus existed but deny miracles and resurrection. Your other claim about Muslims allowed to lie is a lie itself, unless you were a shi'a who supposedly have such a doctrine. But even they apparently don't interpret it as "lying." I don't believe for a second that you are a former Muslim, given complete ignorance you have shown, such as the claim that weak isnad means "forged" hadith. After telling us that, you went on to create an article on a story that has no isnad. You have no credibility or integrity left. You have been debunked to the bones. OneGuy


 * I agree with Pename here, although I'd like to point out that he could also just be from a public school. Have you seen the touchy-feely stuff they feed, that frankly wouldn't be too out of place in a Taleban-era Afghanese schoolbook? (That is, if the Taleban had decent schoolbooks. Or schools. Or books. Or decency.)


 * Good grief. Next thing I know you'll be accusing me of being a Muslim! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:49, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Uh no. I won't be accusing you of being a Muslim. -- Pename

OneGuy has consistently claimed to be an atheist from before you even got here - and I for one find it extremely unlikely that you ever spent any significant time in Muslim countries, given your frankly bizarre opinions about what Muslims think. As for taking care of one's parents, it is specifically mentioned as jihad by a hadith with a good isnad. What hadith says that assassination is jihad? - Mustafaa 03:10, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Get a grip, Mustafaa. Assasinations are part of Jihad. Assasinations were so common amongst the early Muslims, that the etymology of the English word "assasination" goes back to an Islamic sect. In any case, the burden of proof does not lie on me, it lies on you, for the following reason. It has been demonstrated that Muslims, including Muhammad himself (according to traditional Islamic beliefs) engaged in assasination warfare. Asasination is, of course, a part of war. You are suggesting that it is not a part of Islamic holy war. So now it up to you to show us a hadith or a classical juristic ruling which declares that asasination is not a part of Jihad, i.e. that Muslims are prohibited from carrying out asasination warfare. -- Pename


 * No, the one who makes a positive assertion must prove it. This is basic logic. You cannot prove a a negative. You made a positive assertion that assassination of western critics is part of Jihad. You need to prove that assertion. Bring your proof. If you can't, I will assume that's a false claim OneGuy 18:23, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

-- A brief response to OneGuy's above ramblings:

In 1697 AD, the English parliment passed the Blasphemy Act of 1697, which ordered that all individuals found guilty of making atheistic or polytheistic statements (either written or spoken) or denying the "truth" of the Christian religion shall be executed. This was despite the fact that Europe had greatly advanced in philosophy and science by 1697 AD (the English philospher of materialism, Thomas Hobbes, though to have been the first person to systemize materialist philosophy, had already died 30 years before the passing of this act). And yet, contrary to all evidence, OneGuy is claiming that Islam does not and has never ordained the death to those found guilty blasphemy, that Muhammad never commanded ANY punishment for criticism of his new religion (Islam). This despite the fact that it has been pointed out numerous times that the historical sources about Muhammad written by medieval Arab Muslim historians who wrote less than two centuries after Muhammad, clearly show that Muhammad commanded the assasinations of poets who spoke against Islam. Various conteporary fatwas, the juristic rulings of the classical four Madhabs, and certain historical incidents carried out by Muslims (such as the Marytrys of Cordoba, etc., detailed above) clearly show that a large number of Muslims believed and continue to believe that true Islam truly commanded that all who blaspheme against Islam shall be put to death one way or another. Modern Muslim nation-states, such as Pakistan, to this day have Blasphemy Acts which designate blasphemy as a crime punishable by death. And yet in the face of this mountain of evidence, OneGuy obstintantly insists that Islamic law allows anyone to freely criticize Islam and that no Muslims believe in killing those who blaspheme against their religion. And if the article is ever unlocked, OneGuy will undoubtably attempt to remove any mention of assasinations by Muslim practiioners of Jihad, particularly tassassinations of critics of Islam, such as Theo van Gogh. We are to believe that while advanced 17th century Western Europe was still practicing such barbarism, backwards 7th century Islamic Arabia was not! There seems to be no limit to the outrageousness of the religious apologetics of individuals such as ONeGuy. --Pename


 * Amazing! I have never said that the punishment for blasphemy is not death in Islam or the the Bible. Pleas read carefully this time before replying.


 * (1) I asked Pename to prove that scholarly western criticism by western scholars is considered "blasphemy" by most Muslim scholars. He never posted that evidence. Why thousands of western scholars who have written critical books on Islam -- Muir, Cook, Crone, Wansborough and a thousand more -- never received a death fatwa by Muslim scholars?


 * (2) Even fatwa against Rushdie, the only case where a fatwa was issued by a prominent Muslim, whose book is supposedly "blasphemous" (not "criticism") was rejected by Al Azhar university and 44 out 45 countries. That proves that Muslim scholars do not even believe that the jurisdiction of Islamic law is applicable in countries that are not Islamic (the reason given by most Muslim scholars to reject Iran's fatwa against Rushdie who was a British citizen). Rushdie's example has thoroughly debunked this guy, but he keeps repeating the same thing over and over, like a broken record.


 * (3) I asked him to post the names of well known Muslim scholars who issued the death fatwa against a few critics that he mentioned, such as, Manji, Theo van Gogh, and others, who received death threats from anonymous radicals. He never posted that evidence. Only posting the names of isolated critics who received death threats from anonymous radicals doesn't prove anything. Many Muslims/Sikhs (far more than the names he mentioned) received death threats or were killed in the US after 9/11. What would posting that information prove about the US?


 * (4) Pename was asked to post the evidence that assasionation/death threats of western critics is considered "Jihad" according to the Qur'an, hadith, and by Muslim scholars. He never posted that evidence either. He claims it is "Jihad", but he can't provide evidence.


 * (5) The discussion about blasphemy and the treatment of prisoners should go to their own articles. Pename wants to stuff everything he can think in the article Jihad. No wonder the article got blocked. He now insists that he is going to insert everything (including blasphemy law) in the article (some of his claims are even outright lies as I showed above). OneGuy 16:42, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)