| Revision as of 11:57, 24 December 2004 editBrandonYusufToropov (talk | contribs)7,035 edits →Deleting links← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 19:24, 17 December 2024 edit undoPianoDan (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,322 edits →Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2024: decline |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
Older comments from the Jihad discussion page may be found at ], ] and ]. |
|
|
|
{{controversial}} |
|
|
{{Talk header |search=yes }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell |class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Military history |
|
|
|class=B |
|
|
|Science-task-force=yes |
|
|
<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |
|
|
|B-Class-1=yes |
|
|
<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |
|
|
|B-Class-2=yes |
|
|
<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |
|
|
|B-Class-3=yes |
|
|
<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |
|
|
|B4=y |
|
|
|B-Class-5=yes }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Islam|importance=Top|Islam-and-Controversy=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Middle Ages|importance=High|Crusades-task-force=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Theology |importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Law |importance=Low}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Article History |
|
|
|action1=PR |
|
|
|action1date=16:43:13 17 February 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Jihad/archive1 |
|
|
|action1result=reviewed |
|
|
|action1oldid=939001644 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Annual readership|days=365}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|
|counter = 14 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Jihad/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Alternative English Spellings of Jihad == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have found at least one and possibly two alternative English spellings to the word Jihad. The first is Jehad, evidenced by <ref>https://www.britannica.com/topic/jihad</ref>. The second is the Jihath, evidenced here on a Vimeo Video<ref>https://vimeo.com/122172604</ref> (warning graphic only sourced but not linked for this reason) and a PDF document that appears to go into detail about Paramilitary Groups in the area - I think that Sri Lanka has to work with in order to maintain control over the country. One of the groups is the Jihath Group and it appears to be a Jihadist group. The PDF is the fourth chapter in a work and is called ""<ref>https://www.tamilnet.com/img/publish/2011/12/Chapter_4_Partners_in_Crime.pdf</ref>. I think this may be a transliteration issue because it might be that in some transliterations the "d" is replaced with a "th". Possibly because it is transliterated from a Desi background rather than an Arab background. I tried asking/looking around but couldn't get an answer. If anyone knows about Desi transliteration to English for Arabic please advise on if the word "Jihath" is actually the word "Jihad". I think its important because alternative spellings included are not dictionary styles in the sense that WikiPolicy wants to avoid; adding alternative spellings help reader understand what it is they are reading when they see alternative spellings elsewhere. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{reflist-talk}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== God == |
|
== Concerning Islamic Apologia Over Islam's Laws Against Blasphemy == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{U|Kowal2701}}, revert is unnecessary. ] can mean any God, but the ] is different. Please self revert your last edit.-] (]) 17:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
Both Judaism and Christianity have historically punished ], 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 ]. Nevertheless, Islamic ] 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: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: Muslims reject all Gods other than ]!-] (]) 17:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
'''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''' : |
|
|
|
:There is no need in an article about an Islamic concept to specify that God is the god in Islam ] (]) 17:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:Furthermore, it was already linked to ]. – ] (]) 18:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Two separate articles for Arabic Term and Islamic Concept. Misleading, Non-Standard Translatory Description used == |
|
:: ---- 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 ], who was stabbed to death in her sleep at Muhammad's command. Another such poet was ]. In a similar but more contemporary spirit, "] (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 . The late great-grand-nephew of famous Dutch painter ] 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." Another famous incident of this kind was the death fatwa against ], issued by ], 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, ], 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 ] 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 ] (a crime punishable by death in Islam). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Misplaced Pages’s introductions aren’t translatory but explanatory. The article mixes Arabic translation with Islamic concept. Two separate articles are requested. In sharp contrast, Mein Kampf’s article isn’t dominated by literal translation meaning “my struggle”. ] (]) 19:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
::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. ], Ph.D., a Western Muslim who was widely concidered a heretic by mainstream Muslims, due to his rejection of all ], and his attempts to apply ] ] to the ]. On January 31, 1990, ] was stabbed to death in his ], ] ] by an ] ] 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 ], in the city of Córdoba, Spain between the years AD ] and ]: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2024 == |
|
:::<i>"The city of Córdoba was the setting for an unusual historical drama that unfolded between the years 850 and 859, when forty-eight Christians 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."</i> (<u>Christian Martyrs in Muslim Spain</u> by Kenneth Baxter Wolf, Introduction) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Jihad|answered=yes}} |
|
::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. ] reject the assasination or execution of public critics of Islam, though the historical and religious record suggests otherwise. |
|
|
|
Please add this, "The goal of Islam is world conquest followed by forced conversion or persuasion to convert to Islam.<ref>{{cite web | title=Is The Goal of Islam World Conquest? | website=EACLJ | date=3 June 2010 | url=https://eaclj.org/religion/13-religion-feature-articles/16-is-the-goal-of-islam-world-conquest.html | access-date=24 November 2024}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | last=Snow | first=Eric | title=The Koran and Conquest: A Look at Islamic Theology | website=United Church of God | date=6 January 2012 | url=https://www.ucg.org/the-good-news/the-koran-and-conquest-a-look-at-islamic-theology | access-date=24 November 2024}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | title=130. THE GOAL OF ISLAM IS TO CONQUER THE WORLD | website=LIBFAME-LIBERTY FOR ALL MEN EVERYWHERE | url=https://www.libfame.com/130-the-goal-of-islam-is-to-conquer-the-world.html | access-date=24 November 2024}}</ref> ] (]) 11:38, 24 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
{{reflist-talk}} |
|
|
:{{notdone}}, sourcing does not appear to meet ] or even explicitly reach such a conclusion. See ]. ] (]) 15:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{re|JeffSpaceman}} What about this: The Qur’an directs Muslims to spread the message of Islam worldwide declaring it to be a religion for all humankind.<ref>{{cite web | title=The Use of Force under Islamic Law | website=academic.oup.com | url=https://academic.oup.com/ejil/article/24/1/343/438602 | access-date=24 November 2024}}</ref>-] (]) 15:57, 24 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::That source (Oxford University Press) says, "......jihad a continuous obligation for Muslims of all ages.", "....use their accumulated power to remove mischief from the entire world, establishing the rule of Allah.", ".....is also no doubt that the Qur’an enjoins its adherents to spread the message of Islam to the rest of the world.", "....and do not profess the Faith of Truth; until they pay Jizya with their own hands while they are subdued.’" and "There is no doubt that the Qur’an declares Islam to be a religion for all humankind. There is also no doubt that the Qur’an enjoins its adherents to spread the message of Islam to the rest of the world."-] (]) 16:03, 24 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
{{reflist-talk}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
] '''Not done for now''': please establish a ] for this alteration ''']''' using the {{Tlx|Edit semi-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ESp --> The Edit Request Template is only intended for non-controversial edits, which this clearly is not. ] (]) 18:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
:: 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 <u>The Satanic Verses</u> along with pictures of the author, and called for ] 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, <i>"Do you understand that we don't regard it as civilized to kill people for their opinions?"</i> 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 ] 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>I think we should kill Salman Rushdie's whole family</i>," 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, "<i>If I see him, I will kill him straight away. Take my name and address. One day I will kill him</i>." Iqbal Sacranic of the U.S. Action Committee on Islamic Affairs announced that "<i>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</i>." Back in Bradford, the secretary of the Mosque Council, Sayed Abdul Quddus, said that Rushdie "<i>deserves hanging</i>." 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 , much enhancing its respectability. These included the French intellectual Vincent Mansour (ne Vincent Monteil) and the Swiss journalist Ahmed Huber. ], the former rock singer who converted to Islam in 1977 and changed his name to Yusuf al-Islam, told Muslim students in Surrey, "<i>He must be killed. The Qur'an makes it clear--if someone defames the prophet, then he must die</i>." Islam reiterated this view on television two months later, saying that is Rushdie turned up on his doorstep asking for help, "</i>I'd try to phone the Ayatollah Khomeini and tell him exactly where this man is...</i>" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== "forcibly converting polytheistic pagans during the early Muslim conquests.: 46 " == |
|
:: The "Media Guide to Islam" writtne by the Center for Integration and Improvement of Journalism at ] confirms that blasphemy is punishable by death in Islamic law: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please remove this lie. ] (]) 03:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::"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 ], 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 ]." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:The citations don't even say that, so not only ahistorical, defamatory to the Qur'an (by failing to distinguish people's interpretation from the text) but also unacademic as the sources contained do not support the statement. ] (]) 03:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:: 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 ]. 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. |
|
|
|
::The article says {{tq|...the sword verses have historically been interpreted to...}} which makes a clear distinction between the text and its interpretation. ] (]) 15:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Also even if it was 'defamatory', Misplaced Pages is ] ] (]) 15:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:The source says: {{tq|Islamic attitudes towards non-Muslims Islam makes a sharp distinction between those non-Muslims who belong to a religious system with revealed Books, that is the ahl al-Kitäb ('People of the Book') and those non-Muslims considered to be polytheists, idolaters or adherents of traditional religions. In conformity with the doctrine of the successive revelations and of the Prophetic chain, the Jews and the Chris-tians as possessors of the Holy Books are not forced to adopt Islam. This tolerance was applied also to the Zoroastrians as well as to the adherents of some ancient Near Eastern religious systems known as the Sabeans and later even to the Hindus (notwithstanding their multitude of gods) and the Buddhists.}} |
|
|
:{{tq|As regards the second group, since the Prophet Muhammad was sent to preach Islam particularly to those who as yet have not received any revealed guidance, he and his successors were obliged to combat traditional religion and to convert the 'infidels'. These were given the choice of either becoming Muslims or fighting; in the case of defeat their lot was captivity and slavery.}} ] (]) 14:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2024 == |
|
------ |
|
|
A brief response to the above rambling: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Jihad|answered=yes}} |
|
(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.... |
|
|
|
Please check what the source says and correct this sentence: In the 18th century, the Durrani Empire under the reigns of Ahmad Shah Durrani and his son and successor, Timur Shah Durrani, had declared jihads against Sikh Misls in the Punjab region, often to consolidate territory and continue Afghan their region, efforts under Ahmad Shah failed, while Timur Shah had succeeded. ] (]) 15:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
] '''Not done''': it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 19:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
: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'. ] 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. ] 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 ~~~~ 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 ] 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. ] 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 ] 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.. 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 "is opposed to the fatwa issued against Salman Rushdie." and , "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? ] 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?] 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? ] 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. ] 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. ] 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 ] 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 Misplaced Pages 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. ] 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 ] 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 ~~~~) 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? ] 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? ] 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 ] 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. - ] 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? - ] 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 ], whom Muslims traditionally believe was a poetess and mother of six children that ] 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 . 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. ] 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. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
::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! - ] 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? - ] 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 ] 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 ] does not and has never ordained the death to those found guilty blasphemy, that ] 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 ], 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 ]. 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). ] 16:42, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==great slaughter== |
|
|
|
|
|
I checked the translation that Pename posted on 8:67-68. It comes from Hilai/Khan. Notice that Pename didn't know where this translation came from. He claimed it came from Pickthall, but Pickthall doesn't have the word "great." Obviously Pename took the translation from anti-Islamic site and inserted it here without knowing anything about the verse. The commentary on this site claims that the verse refers to freeing the prisoners without ransom . I checked Yusuf Ali commentary on the verse, and he also said something similar. He says that wordily gains are condemned in the verse. He then goes on to say that one of the prisoner was Al Abbsa who was ancestor of Abbasid Caliphate. Obviously the prisoners that this verse refers to were not killed. Even usually hostile Muir said positive things about the treatment of prisoners after the battle of Badr. I don't have access to other commentaries like Muhammad Asad and others, but I suspect that they interpreted the verse this way too. Hilai/Khan commentary probably also interprets the verse this way since the above site uses that translation. Qaribullah/Ahmad Darwish translation: |
|
|
|
|
|
:It is not for any Prophet to have Prisoners in order to slaughter many in the land. You want the gain of this life, and Allah wants everlasting life ... |
|
|
|
|
|
This translation again agrees with Yusuf Ali commentary. |
|
|
|
|
|
Pename copied/pasted this verse from anti-islamic site without knowing where the translation came from or what the verse is about. He used the verse (like anti-Islamic site he copied it from) to imply something opposite to how Muslims interpret the verse. In other words, this turns out to be another case of Pename twisting facts and copying/pasting stuff from anti-Islamic sites (like most of his other stuff here) and inserting them into article ] 23:51, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Once again, OneGuy is making false accusations against me, in blatent violation of Misplaced Pages policy. And once again, I am forced to respond to his false accusations, even though I do not wish to engage him in any kind of debate due to his constant violations of wikipedia policies (e.g. ], ], and of course ]). I copied the Qur'an quote which says "great slaughter" from http://www.sunnahonline.com/ilm/seerah/0005.htm (a Muslim website). But which website I got it from is irrelevant because the website is actually just an online copy of an English translation of a book that is widely avaialble on the Internet. The book is titled and it was written by a Muslim scholar named Shaykh Safi ur-Rahmaan Mubarakfoori. --Pename |
|
|
|
|
|
:: That's exactly what I said earlier, that either you found this translation on Islamic site like the above that uses the verse and interprets it completely differently, or you found it on anti-Islamic site. In response you posted a link to Picthall translation! Anyone can scroll up (or search the page for "Picthall" since it's a big page) and check. The translation that you copied and pasted into the article was not from Pitchall, and given that like anti-Islamic sites you used the verse to imply opposite meaning to how Muslims interpret the verse, it's safe to assume that you found the verse on anti-Islamic site and inserted it in the article without having a clue what the verse was about. Of course now you can use google and find names like "Ar-Raheeq al-Makhtoom" (The Sealed Nectar) and others; but when I first asked you, you had no clue and posted a link a to Picthall. ] 09:11, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Because we all know that ad hominem attacks are better than facts.. (that is, if you have none). |
|
|
|
|
|
:: anonymous user: kindly sign your posts by ending everything you say with something like "--anonymous user." This helps prevent confusion on the discussion page. Thanks. -- Pename |
|
|
|
|
|
: OneGuy has stooped to the level of providing fake translations of the Qur'an; OneGuy's translation of verse 8:86: |
|
|
|
|
|
::: "It is <b>not</b> for any Prophet to have Prisoners <b>in order to slaughter many</b> in the land. You want the gain of this life, and Allah wants everlasting life ... " |
|
|
|
|
|
: Here is verse 8:86 according to three different internationally reknown English translations of the Qur'an: |
|
|
|
|
|
::: YUSUFALI: It is <b>not</b> fitting for a prophet that he should have prisoners of war <b>until</b> he hath thoroughly subdued the land. Ye look for the temporal goods of this world; but Allah looketh to the Hereafter: And Allah is Exalted in might, Wise. |
|
|
::: PICKTHAL: It is <b>not</b> for any prophet to have captives <b>until he hath made slaughter</b> in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise. |
|
|
::: SHAKIR: It is <b>not</b> fit for a prophet that he should take captives <b>unless</b> he has fought and triumphed in the land; you desire the frail goods of this world, while Allah desires (for you) the hereafter; and Allah is Mighty, Wise. |
|
|
|
|
|
: As anyone can see, the meaning in OneGuy's translation of the verse is completely different from the meaning of the verse as translated in every published English translation of the Qur'an. Not only did OneGuy not provide a URL when he posted this supposed quation from the Qur'an, he did not even cite its chapter and verse number. How can someone who engages in such intellectual dishonesty be allowed to continue contributing to this encylopedia? -- Pename |
|
|
|
|
|
::I cited the chapter and verse number in the first sentence, 8:67-68! Stop making a fool out yourself and read before replying. I didn't promote a false "translation" of the Qur'an. <s> I clearly stated that the translation is based on '''tafsir'''' by Al-Muntakhab. </s> You posted Yusuf Ali translation above, but his commentary on 8:68 also agrees with <s> Muntakhab tafsir </s> (Qaribullah/Ahmad translation). I have not yet found any Islamic source (unless you can post the evidence) that interprets the verse like you used it for. Obviously you found the verse on anti-Islamic site, but you didn't have any clue where the translation came from or how Muslims interpret the verse. Post a single Islamic site that interprets this verse like you used it for. Otherwise, you did indeed cut and pasted the verse from anti-Islamic site ] 09:34, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::And here is the URL http://www.divineislam.com/ You will find the "Al-Muntakhab" translation (based on '''Tafsir'''). there. The important part is not the translation but how Muslims interpret the verse. <s> Yusuf Ali commentary also interprets the verse like Al-Muntakhab. </s> See Yusuf Ali note on 8:68. Not only you didn't know where the translation came from, but you also used the anti-Islamic interpretation (on POW) not found on any Islamic site. Obviously you cut and pasted the verse from anti-Islamic site without having a clue what the verse was about ] 09:42, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: "you also used the anti-Islamic interpretation (on POW) not found on any Islamic site. Obviously you cut and pasted the verse from anti-Islamic site without having a clue what the verse was about" <--- Once again, OneGuy is engaging in ]. And once again, OneGuy is making false accusations against me, in blatent violation of Misplaced Pages policy. And once again, I am forced to respond to his false accusations, even though I do not wish to engage him in any kind of debate due to his constant violations of wikipedia policies (e.g. ], ], and of course ]). I copied the Qur'an quote which says "great slaughter" <b>and the related discussion on POWs</b> from http://www.sunnahonline.com/ilm/seerah/0005.htm (a Muslim website). But which website I got it from is irrelevant because the website is actually <b>just an online copy</b> of an English translation <b>of a published book</b> that happens to be widely avaialble on the Internet. The book is titled and it was written by a Muslim scholar named ] Safi ur-Rahmaan Mubarakfoori. -- Pename |
|
|
|
|
|
::::The content of the above page where the verse is used is exact copy of the page that I gave. Compare his above and the page that I gave in my first reply . (scroll down to where the verse is used on his link and then compare). See . In response Pename at that time posted Picthall translation. The translation is not from Picthall (it's from Hilali/Khan). He is now trying to confuse people with throwing names like ''Ar-Raheeq al-Makhtoom,'' even though the content on the page are exactly the same that I gave. The translation that he copied and pasted into the article was not from Pitchall, and given that like anti-Islamic sites, he used the verse to imply opposite meaning to how Muslims interpret the verse (like the above Islamic site), it's safe to assume that he found the verse on anti-Islamic site and inserted it in the article without having a clue what the verse was about. Basically this was cut and past from anti-Islamic site and inserting that into articles without having a clue ] 15:37, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: "And here is the URL http://www.divineislam.com/" <--- Misplaced Pages sources must be verifiable accoridng to official Misplaced Pages policy. The source you have provided is a link to a Microsoft Windows EXE file. I do not use Microsoft Windows, so I cannot run your program on my computer. Therefore your source is not verifiable. -- Pename |
|
|
|
|
|
::: "I didn't promote a false "translation" of the Qur'an. I clearly stated that the translation is based on '''tafsir'''' by Al-Muntakhab." <--- are you saying that you did not even copy the translation exactly as shown in the www.divineislam.com "Qur'an viewer" Windows software? -- Pename |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: You claim to be a former Muslim, but you don't know what tafir means? LOL. No, I copied and pasted it exactly as it was on the screen. Since the translation is supposedly based on a tafsir, I assume it is not a literal translation. You interpreted the verse as found on anti-Islamic sites, not as how Muslims interpret the verse. Unless you post Islamic site or source, I will assume that it was just another case of cut and past without having a clue. And the translation that you inserted comes from Hilali/Khan (exactly as it is in Hilali/Khan including parenthesis), not Picthall as you claimed ] 15:37, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
And here is more |
|
|
|
|
|
http://tolueislam.com/Parwez/expo/expo_008.htm |
|
|
|
|
|
:67) O Jama’at-ul-Momineen! you wanted as many prisoners of war as you could have in order to secure their ransom. It does not behove your Rasool to do this since he is waging war in order to accomplish the Divine purpose and not for the fleeting gains of the world - Allah looks to your future as well as your present for He is not only Mighty but also Wise. |
|
|
|
|
|
:(68) Had it not been for the provision of forgiveness in Allah’s laws, you would have received a mighty chastisement for taking prisoners of war for the purpose of worldly gains. |
|
|
|
|
|
Notice that that's not a "literal" translation in case Pename accuses me of promoting a "false translation" again! The point is that I have not yet seen any Isamic source (unless Pename presents some evidence) that interprets the verse like anti-Islamic sites where he probably found the verse ] 16:20, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
------------ |
|
|
|
|
|
I am still curious about this verse. Here is Hilali/Khan translation. |
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.thenoblequran.com/sps/nbq/ |
|
|
|
|
|
When you go to 8:67, there is commentary by Ibn Katheer, Tabari, and Qurtubi on the verse. But I can't read/understand Arabic. If anyone else can summarize what Ibn Katheer, Tabari, and Qurtubi said about the verse, please do so (or I will have to ask someone else online) ] 23:41, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
------------------------- |
|
|
|
|
|
Here is some explanation of the verses of surah 8, from ] ], explaining that the verses command the Muslims to eradicate all polytheism and atheism ("]" and "]," in Arabic) from the world through holy war: http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=8&tid=20140 (tafsir.com contains English translations of Ibn Kathir's tafsir). Verse 8:67 is commanding the Muslims to follow a strict policy of <b>take no prisoners</b> (i.e. kill every enemy you encounter, even if the enemy is surrendering) <b>until</b> "the land is thoroughly subdued." Pename |
|
|
|
|
|
:The above Ibn Kathir commentary on chapter 8 says nothing about 8:67 itself. You inserted 8:67 in the article to imply that prisoners of wars were to be killed. Where is your evidence? I cited a number of commentaries, but none of them said that the verse refers to killing prisoners of war, like you implied in the article. During Afghanistan invasion, Rumsfeld said that the US policy is to kill as many enemies as possible, not take prisoners. That doesn't mean that Rumsfeld was advocating killing POWs. ] 10:37, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Or as Dr. Hilali & Dr. Khan, of the University of ] in Saudi Arabia, translate this verse, it is commanding the Muslims to <b>take no prisoners</b> <b>until</b> there has been a "great slaughter in the land." Basically Allah is telling the Muslims in 8:68 to terrorize their enemy with a "take no prisoners" policy, instead of taking as many prisoners as possible in order to ransom them back for monetary gain. Pename |
|
|
|
|
|
:Now you finally know that the translation is by Hilali/Khan. You had no clue when you first inserted it in the article. You used the verse in the article to imply that prisoners of wars were to be killed. Post the evidence that the verse means killing POWs. Even if your above interpretation is correct, that doesn't mean killing prisoners. As I said above, Rumsfeld several times said that the US policy is to kill as many enemies as possible, not take prisoners. That doesn't mean that Rumsfeld was advocating killing POWs. ] 10:37, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Many of the Muslim soldiers preferred to capture the enemy soldier and ransom him back for money, instead of killing the enemy soldier, if possible. IN the Qur'an, the Muslims are told not do this until they have commited a "great slaughter," or "thoroughly subdued the land," depending on whether one wants to consult a liberal English translation or a more fundamentalist translation. In any case, it is well neigh impossible to "throughouly subdue a land" without commiting "great slaughter in the land," so the implied meaning is essentially the same. As the link to the ] ] interpretation of surah 8 reveals, the traditional fundamentalist intepretation is that the Muslims are commanded to eradicate all polytheism and atheism from the world through holy war. Now Muslim apologists people like OneGuy will bend over backwards trying to whitewash this, but I don't see him succeeding here on any intellectual level. |
|
|
|
|
|
: "intellectual"? That's coming from a guy who inserts a translation in the article but has no clue what he just inserted in the article. He also, like anti-Islamic sites where he got the verse, used the verse to imply that in Islam POWs were to be killed. He has yet to post the evidence (Islamic commentary) that says 8:67 means kill prisoners. ] 10:37, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Here is an excerpt from an online ] from an Muslim cleric, regarding prisoners of war, in which the "take no prisoners" policy of Jihad is confirmed: |
|
|
|
|
|
::: "<b>No Enemy Captives are to Be Held before their Army is Vanquished</b> |
|
|
|
|
|
::: One of the strategic rules introduced by Islam is that no attention should be paid to capturing the enemy on the battlefield before vanquishing them altogether in a way that they will be subdued. Should the Muslims focus on holding the enemy soldiers in captivity, before achieving a concise victory over them, the enemy might think of launching another war against the Muslims in the future. |
|
|
|
|
|
::: Allah the Almighty blamed His Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) following the Battle of Badr for being concerned during the battle, with capturing enemies before subduing the whole army of the enemy. Allah the Almighty says in this regard: |
|
|
|
|
|
::: “It is not fitting for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he has thoroughly subdued the land. You look for the temporal goods of this world; but Allah looks to the Hereafter: And Allah is Exalted in Might, Wise.” (Al-Anfal: 67). |
|
|
|
|
|
::: In this verse, "temporal goods of this world" refers to the ransom the Muslims expected to take in return for setting the enemy captives free. Here, Allah the Almighty objects that the Muslims seek to have captives before vanquishing the enemy and subduing it altogether. |
|
|
|
|
|
::: It is important to note that blame in this verse, is for taking captives before subduing the enemy altogether, not for taking the ransom instead of killing them as is usually mentioned in the biographies written about the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). |
|
|
|
|
|
::: This is supported by Almighty Allah's words: "Now when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when you have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens." (Muhammad: 4) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: This verse indicates that the primary concern of the Muslims on the battlefield is "smiting of the necks" of the enemy until they have been routed altogether, and then comes "making fast of bonds," which refers to holding the remaining defeated enemies in captivity. |
|
|
|
|
|
::: War in Islam is not fought for the sake of bloodshed, nor is there in Islam any instruction to the effect that after vanquishing the enemy, all its male members who are held in captivity are to be beheaded as is the case in the Torah. After completely subduing the enemy, the Muslims can capture its soldiers." (http://www.islamonline.net/fatwaapplication/english/display.asp?hFatwaID=114486) (Pename) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Even the above fatwa doesn't say that 8:67 means kill prisoners of wars, like you used it in the article. I see nothing wrong with above fatwa. Let me repeat it for the third time, even Rumsfeld said during Afghan invasion that their policy is to kill as many enemies as possible instead of taking POWs. That doesn't mean that Rumsfeld was advocating killing POWs. ] 10:37, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Note that in the same fatwaa, there is a section titled "Can Captives Be Enslaved or Killed?," which confirms that according to various eminent, classical scholars of Islam, it is permissable to enslave and kill captured prisoners of war. |
|
|
|
|
|
:It also has comments by other classical scholars who disagreed. The above site also has this fatwa: Islam’s Stance on Prisoners of War http://www.islamonline.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=55158 -- ''The Prophet, however urged his followers to treat their captives with clemency. He said to them <b> You are recommended to treat your captives kindly </b>.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
:Compare that with one-sided POW section that you inserted in the article originally. POW should have it's own article instead of stuffing everything in Jihad article. Your original POW section was a pathetic one-sided propaganda that belongs to an anti-Islamic site, not Encyclopedia ] |
|
|
|
|
|
There is nothing surprising or unusual about all this. Almost all medieval warfare was carried out with such cruelty, especially amongst the rugged bedoiun of medieval Arabia. Muhammad was merely acting in accordance with the social norms of his particular time and place, as all humans do. -- Pename |
|
|
|
|
|
----- |
|
|
To summarize everything above, Pename inserted a verse in the article with the implication that the verse means killing prisoners of war. He found the verse (or this interpretation) on some anti-Islamic site. He did not know where the translation he inserted in the article came from. Any way you look at the verse (even Hilali/Khan translation), the main thrust of the verse is condemnation of taking prisoners <b> to make money (by ransoming them later) </b>. The verse says nothing about killing people who are already prisoners, like Pename implied in the article (probably the interpretation he found on anti-Islamic site). I posted a number of different commentaries on the verse. None of them said that 8:67 means kill prisoners. ] 13:15, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: OneGuy is repeating his false accusations for the third time, after having been repeatedly refuted. He continues to insist that I "found the verse (or this interpretation) on some anti-Islamic site." He has provided a URL to a non-Muslim website which contains an excerpt from a book by a Muslim scholar, and claims that this is the URL where I copied the verse from. As I have repeatedly stated, the same excerpt can be found at the Islamic website http://www.sunnahonline.com/ilm/seerah/0005.htm Yet OneGuy continues to make his false claims. He is blatently violating Misplaced Pages official policy. Note furthermore that the "take no prisoners" policy commanded in the verse in question, and as described above, does indeed come down to killing surrendering enemy forces who would otherwise have been taken prisoner. Also, the above cited fatwaa from a well-known scholarly Islamic website confirms Islam's traditional position on the permissability of executing prisoners of war. Thus OneGuy's argument is intellectually bankcrupt. --Pename |
|
|
|
|
|
===Not Al-Muntakha Translation=== |
|
|
|
|
|
I made a mistake above claiming that the translation that I posted came from Al-Muntakhab tafsir. That was Qaribullah/Ahmad Darwish translation: <nowiki> http://homepages.uel.ac.uk/ali4786t/Qur'an_stuffz/ </nowiki> |
|
|
Muhammad Sarwar also translates it this way, "The Prophet is not supposed to take any captives to strengthen his position on earth ..." . I mixed that up when I said that that was Al-Muntakhab tafsir. That tafsir actually agrees with Hilai/Khan and other translations (though the word used is "subdue" not "great slaughter"). But the main thrust of tafsir still is condemnation of taking prisoners to make money. The tafsir says nothing about killing people who are already prisoners, an interpretation that Pename implied in the article. ] 15:48, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Pename == |
|
|
|
|
|
<b></b>- ] 21:21, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
<b></b> ] |
|
|
|
|
|
::I've rolled back because a 3 day old comment should not be archived! Interestingly, Pename accused me of hiding things for the same reason. - ] 00:53, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
<b>]) |
|
|
|
|
|
"Avoid profanity (words or images that could be considered offensive by typical Misplaced Pages readers)" (])<b>]</b> |
|
|
|
|
|
: Talk about pot calling ... For anyone unfamiliar with abuse of this guy, see ]. This guy insulted everyone here. He also suddenly declared himself "anonymous" after RFC was posted against his user ID "Pename" ] 09:45, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Deleting links== |
|
|
|
|
|
I added some other links. No need to delete all the links. Notice how concise, short, to the point, and NPOV (neutral) the Jihad article is on Encarta Encyclopedia . Compare that to the mess we have; thanks greatly to the anti-Islamic troll who wanted to stuff everything ant-Islamic (POWs, Blasphemy) into the article ] 10:30, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: 1. "<b>Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Misplaced Pages</b>. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Nobody likes abuse. <b>Many Wikipedians remove personal attacks on sight</b>. Users have been blocked or banned for repeatedly engaging in them. Abusive edit summaries are particularly ill-regarded." (]). <b>Edit your post or it will be deleted</b>. |
|
|
|
|
|
: 2. The Encarta Encylopedia article is short because you are using the Online FREE version of it. |
|
|
|
|
|
: 3. There are many different Islamic websites with different points of view about Jihad. You have put 4 "Islamic website" links and all of them are from one POV website, namely IslamOnline.com All parts of the article are supposed to be NPOV, yet you are unable to even make an NPOV list of external links. -- Pename |
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't add any Islamic site. All the sites were added by other people. I only added non-Islamic sites because you, an anti-Islamic troll, removed the whole section. And no, the Encarta version is not short because it's online version. See some of their articles, say, . That's much longer than wikipedia article on Turkey. The article is short because unlike you, an anti-Islamic cut and past troll, they didn't have an agenda to stuff everything anti-islamic cut and past into Jihad article ] 03:44, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Reviewing the concise, well-written Encarta article was quite iluminating. Notice the absence of citations from sheiks, for instance. I am tempted to condense ours mightily. Thoughts? ] 11:57, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC) |
|
I have found at least one and possibly two alternative English spellings to the word Jihad. The first is Jehad, evidenced by Encyclopedia Brittanica. The second is the Jihath, evidenced here on a Vimeo Video (warning graphic only sourced but not linked for this reason) and a PDF document that appears to go into detail about Paramilitary Groups in the area - I think that Sri Lanka has to work with in order to maintain control over the country. One of the groups is the Jihath Group and it appears to be a Jihadist group. The PDF is the fourth chapter in a work and is called "Partners in crime: SLAFs and Paramilitaries". I think this may be a transliteration issue because it might be that in some transliterations the "d" is replaced with a "th". Possibly because it is transliterated from a Desi background rather than an Arab background. I tried asking/looking around but couldn't get an answer. If anyone knows about Desi transliteration to English for Arabic please advise on if the word "Jihath" is actually the word "Jihad". I think its important because alternative spellings included are not dictionary styles in the sense that WikiPolicy wants to avoid; adding alternative spellings help reader understand what it is they are reading when they see alternative spellings elsewhere.
Misplaced Pages’s introductions aren’t translatory but explanatory. The article mixes Arabic translation with Islamic concept. Two separate articles are requested. In sharp contrast, Mein Kampf’s article isn’t dominated by literal translation meaning “my struggle”. 129.137.96.13 (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Please check what the source says and correct this sentence: In the 18th century, the Durrani Empire under the reigns of Ahmad Shah Durrani and his son and successor, Timur Shah Durrani, had declared jihads against Sikh Misls in the Punjab region, often to consolidate territory and continue Afghan their region, efforts under Ahmad Shah failed, while Timur Shah had succeeded. 2406:7400:90:9B1A:8D96:6A12:576B:12FE (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Referencing and citation: criterion met
Not done, sourcing does not appear to meet WP:RS or even explicitly reach such a conclusion. See WP:SYNTH. JeffSpaceman (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. PianoDan (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)