Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Islamic military jurisprudence

Islamic military jurisprudence
I hope to bring it to GA status eventually. Evaluate it for the usual (sources, NPOV, grammar etc). Constructive criticism is welcomed. In particular, I would like to know the following:


 * Is it fairly easy (for someone with little or no knowledge of Islam)to understand the content?
 * When you read the article do you feel that it is jumping from one topic to another without giving adequate linking between two topics?

Unfortunately, I've tried looking for images, but couldn't find any relevant ones. Thanks in advance.Bless sins 16:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sefringle
The first issue is NPOV. All opinions need to be attributed to the scholars, rather than stated as this is the correct opinion. In addition, the article is one sided; where it makes Islam look good, there is elaboration, where it makes islam look bad, the issues are barely touched, as if to deminish attention to that section. As this topic is closely related to Islamic terrorism, there probably is more said on this which isn't covered in this article. I have also noticed some views have been censored out since 2 months ago.

Second issue: As the qur'an isn't being used as a primary source, quran quotes should not be in the format.

As for FA status, maybe in the future, but the article isn't ready yet.-- Sef rin gle Talk 03:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Roger Davies
In response to your specific questions:
 * Yes, I think it is difficult for people with no background in Islam to follow. (For instance, you open with a reference to "lesser jihad" without explaining what it is and some of the explanations are dense.) Perhaps the solution to this is to have a clear introductory/summary paragraph at the beginning of each section in exceedingly plain English, followed by the academic explanation (which introduces the applicable Arabic terms).
 * Yes, it does jump from section to section but that is not a fault. Each section deals with a different aspect and trying to link them with narrative would just add verbiage.

Other reactions?
 * Highly commendable attempt to cast light on a complicated and controversial subject.
 * Well-referenced and broadly lucid, though probably too dependent on Islamic jargon (if you'll forgive me using the expression in this context) to attract the general reader.
 * Use of the common era calendar in parallel to AH might be handy to give non-Muslims a time fix.
 * Rather too densely written at the moment. Needs to drip-feed information so that it's easier to assimilate.
 * I didn't have any particular NPOV concerns in reading it.

-- R OGER D AVIES  TALK 08:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Beit Or
First and foremost, Wikipedia articles must be sourced to reliable secondary sources. This is where this article fails spectacularly. For the most part, it's sourced to primary sources, like the Qur'an, the hadith, and some Islamic scholars; academic sources are few and far between. This approach is not acceptable because drawing conclusions from the Qur'an and the hadith is original research and when one cites an Islamic scholar directly, one may give undue weight to a minority point of view. This is exactly what's happened in this article; the mosr frequently cited scholars are Ghamidi and Maududi: both are modern scholars with rather idiosyncretic views, especially Ghamidi, neither counts as a classical authority for any school of Islamic jurisprudence. At this point in the development of the article, it makes no sense to delve into further details; above all, the issue of sourcing must be fixed. Beit Or 19:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * After removing this one sentence it looks like every sentence is sourced. (Note the lead is an exception as it is a summary of the ideas in the article). Bless sins 03:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please read my comments carefully. The problem of this article is not a lack of sources, but the lack of reliable secondary sources. Beit Or 20:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's make one thing crystal clear: all sources used are either secondary or tertiary. I don't see the use of primary sources (without supporting secondary ones) anywhere.
 * Secondly, which source is not reliable on Islam? Just because someone is not a "classical" scholar doesn't make him/her unreliable. I have already discussed on numerous articles how Maududi is a very reliable source on Islam. Ghamidi was even on the Council of Islamic Ideology which is government body meant to advise the Pakistani parliament on Islamic matters of governance and legislation.Bless sins 01:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)