Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GimmeBot (talk | contribs) at 23:37, 15 September 2007 (Removing {{FAOL}} from FA per User_talk:SandyGeorgia#Re:_FAOL). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Islam/Archive 24. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this page. You may wish to ask factual questions about Islam/Archive 24 at the Reference desk.

	Islam/Archive 24 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 1, 2007.
Article milestones Date Process Result November 11, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted May 17, 2006 Peer review Reviewed October 20, 2006 Peer review Reviewed November 20, 2006 Peer review Reviewed December 11, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed May 3, 2007 Good article nominee Listed May 22, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of November 18, 2006. Current status: Featured article

	This non-existent page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Religion This page is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion

This article was reviewed by The Denver Post on April 30, 2007. Comments: "quite impressed"; "looks like something that might have been done by a young graduate student, or assistant professor, or two or three"; "clinical and straightforward, but not boring"; "where important translations of Arabic language or fine religious distinctions are required, Misplaced Pages acquits itself well." Please examine the findings. For more information about external reviews of Misplaced Pages articles and about this review in particular, see this page.

Template:WP1.0

Chronological Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 Topical Archives
External Links
Archive index

Demographics

This is regarding this addition . It was previously removed by another editor, then again recently by me. It has been reinserted now, and I do not wish to get into an edit war.

Due to immigration and high fertility rates among Muslim communities, Islam is the second largest religion after Christianity in many European countries. Why I think the first part should be removed:

• This is not supported by the sources provided
• The evidence for higher fertility rates increasing the population significantly is not established. Furthermore, many immigrant groups, regardless of religion have higher fertility rates. Why does this pertain particularly to Islam?
• It is a blanket statement, and ignores the more subtle demographic profiles of many of the countries in Europe. Recurring dreams 13:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I wrote a suggestion to the Editor who inserted the statement to source it and possibly place it in the section on Demographics or Modern times. Which reminds, the Section listing the major population centers in various regions does not do so for Europe.--Tigeroo 13:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

the BBC source says that these factors make Islam the "fastest growing religion" in Europe (and not that it's the second largest religion in Europe because of these factors). Recurring dreams is quite right, it's overly simplistic. ITAQALLAH 17:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless we are ready to have a serious discussion about the factors contributing to the growth in Muslims, we should avoid making blanket statements.Bless sins 13:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It's too marginal for this article. There are thousands of basic social science textbooks that will tell you that Muslims came to European countries as a result of immigration mainly from formerly colonised countries, and that subsequently their numbers have increased through a combination of continued immigration and demographic factors. Demographic factors include not only a higher birth rate (which tends however to reduce over time and converge with the rate in the indigenous population) but also a lower death rate, resulting from the young average age of the original immigrant population.Itsmejudith 14:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Orginial research216.99.62.32 18:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Question

Last sentence of lead section: Only about 20 percent of Muslims come from Arab countries. Doesn't it mean come from or live? I don't have the source so I don't know but come from seems to include Arab migrants to other countries which are Muslim. That may not be what the source is suggesting. Just a clarification. Thank you Gizza 22:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This section should indicate that the majority of Muslims are related to the tribes of Ishmael and quite often used the name Ismael for said same. This will historically keep the Muslim/Islam issue identified with its correct, historical linage. Muhammad was an Ishmalite as well as most of the others of Muslim/Islam. The term Ishmalel (Ismael) needs to be throughly defined here and linked to this article. Thanks Sons of Ishmael —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobby bosch (talk • contribs) 16:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Reposting this comment

This section is the very opposite of balanced if it ignores the preaching of some clerics today who equate jihad with a holy war against Israel. I added some referenced information on this subject (from a non-biased source) which was promptly removed, with a comment to take it to the talk page. I know the intention is to present Islamic in the best possible light, but there is no excuse for ignoring a phenomenon that is so significant today -whether or not it is pleasant to hear. This is supposed to be an encyclopdia and to help people understand the world. By making believe jihad does not exist in the sense of armed struggle against "infidels" (which includes Israel) you are making a joke of Misplaced Pages as an information source. I wrote that "some Muslim clerics" think this way. To ignore that is either wishful thinking or a deliberate attempt to deceive the reading public. --Gilabrand 13:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you please give full details of the source so that everyone can evaluate it? If you're not already familiar with Misplaced Pages policy on verification you might save time by having a quick look at it. Thanks. Itsmejudith 11:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The source was clearly stated when I entered the information. The source is Memri (The Middle East Media Research Institute "(MEMRI) explores the Middle East through the region's media. MEMRI bridges the language gap which exists between the West and the Middle East, providing timely translations of Arabic, Persian, and Turkish media, as well as original analysis of political, ideological, intellectual, social, cultural, and religious trends in the Middle East. Founded in February 1998 to inform the debate over U.S. policy in the Middle East, MEMRI is an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit, 501 (c)3 organization". --Gilabrand 12:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

MEMRI is fine for a current-events article, but not for this article, which should be restricted to sources by scholars only. - Merzbow 17:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for stating it again, though, so that we didn't have to trawl back through the page history. And I think Merzbow is right about the source for this particular article. Itsmejudith 19:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the bigger question is why single out mention the current Israeli-Arab confrontation as Jihad. There are quite a few other Jihad's being waged around the world right now and a lot more through history. The purpose of this article is an view of the Islamic concept. While resistance to Israel is a jihad Opposition to Israel is not what Jihad is about, I hope you can see the difference, this article is about the latter while the former belongs as an entry in a list of Jihads, or http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Islam/Archive_21&action=editcurrent Jihads etc. I think it may have been removed because it just invites trolling and deviation from the discussions on the article--Tigeroo 22:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

hierarchy of religions

According to Friedmann Islam maintains a hierarchy of religions wherein it occupies the uppermost place followed, in descending order, by Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, and polytheism.

I think this is his idea. In Islam the religions divided to truly monotheistic comprising what all of the prophets of Islam have taught, distorted monotheistic comprising what we know as Judaism, Christianity and Zoroastrianism today, polytheism and atheism. Islam guide to first group, tolerate the second one as dhimmis and fight with the last.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 06:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I both agree and disagree. I don't think the Prophet had any problem with Judaism or Hanafiyah in their essense. Being a Christian, or a Jew doesn't matter (this is very clear from the Qur'an). What matters is submission to God. Religion is not classified by name in Islam. It is classified by piety and fear of God. Some may classify it in certain contexts but certainly not in theology. --Aminz 06:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Both of you may want to read WP:NOR. Beit Or 12:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Sa.vakilian, what? Judaism is not truly monotheistic? --Aminz 06:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Being a Christian, or a Jew is another matter. I don't mean all of the non-Muslims go to hell. this is another issue which Muslims disagree about it. I speak about the religions. I mean that what have been taught by the prophets were corrects and Islam accepts them but during the the time the monotheistic religions distorted to some extent and finally abrogated by Islam. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 07:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

this is explicitly the viewpoint of Ibn al-Qayyim; Friedmann makes that absolutely clear. not all scholars agree, Friedmann mentions classical Hanafi jurist al-Sarkhasi who places Judaism above Christianity because of the latter's trinitarian doctrine. the general order appears to be Judaism/Christianity, then Zoroastrianism (and possibly others), then polytheism. ITAQALLAH 11:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No, please read carefully. Christianity is generally ranked above Judaism because Christians recognize Jesus, while Jews do not. The opinions placing Judaism above Christianity due to monotheistic considerations are in the minority. Beit Or 11:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

What I see, is him using the words "According to" when referencing the two sources and only mentioning any consensus beyond a general agreement that "People of the Book" (Christians/ Jews) rank above Zoroastrianism and polytheism in religious percepts. At anyrate, the author states that he "discerns" the hierarchy "in some sources" pg.38. Infact the entire chapter focus more on the concept of Muslim thought considering the Classical Muslim jurisprudence conception of a superiority of law/ civilization/ religion and how this "motif" of superiority has had, in his opinion, a cascading "ramifications in numerous fields of thought and practice." Unless I missed something it might be a bit of a stretch to extend it onto the supposition that there is a such an official Islamic hierarchal list. Nothing in his work states that.--Tigeroo 12:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like original research, on your part. Padishah5000 21:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This is actual quite trivial information with little value. There is NO such formal official Theological list as such, merely postulations. The more important concept is quite simply thus : Islam is how to get it right anything else is WRONG. The other Abrahamic faiths/ belief system is the next best thing only because they are the closest belief system to that of the Islamic concept of right, with polytheism being the worst because it is the way off base. Also there is significant amount diversion even in classical thought on how that plays into the states relationship. One concept was supremacy one and another was that of citizenship loyalty, that they would not uphold the Islamic nature of the law of the land. Even the other laws stated therein have other concepts, such as patriarchal familial structures which makes the fathers identity the adopted identity of the kid etc. These can easily be referenced and brought up to balance the POV displayed by one authors conception, but the question is what purpose does this serve except bloat the article. Let the details go to the appropriate sub-page where it can be hashed out properly.--Tigeroo 13:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I think there isn't any standard rank. We should say Islam, Ahl Kitab(comprising Christianity, Judaism and Zoroastrianism) others(comprising pagans, atheists, etc)--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Padishah5000 21:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Please don't remove clarify tag before building consensus.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 18:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

How significant is this? This smacks of fringe theories because there is no official status or theological codification of such a concept except in the sense of "we are correct and who is closest to us is more correct" beyond the treatment of the concept of dhimma. I suggest this mention is both fringe & undue weight as well as not particularly relevant. As for the other concept of superiority, all religions/ philosophies consider themselves them the correct belief system and as such inherently the superior way of life. It smacks of an backend POV entry in this sense given that no other religion page devotes such attention to extrapolating some facets in drawn out detail on jurisprudence while providing contracted details on others; WP:Undue weight. There is no official status within the religion or jurisprudence for such a concept and as Friedman himself notes considerable dissonance both within the schools on its treatment philosophically as well as over historical time on how this concept is treated. It is primarily a philosophical / social view: pg 38 "In addition to the unquestionable exaltedness of Islam, in some sources a hierarchy between the non-Muslim religions can also be discerned." Here he is confirming the above and further suggests he is extrapolating a personal conception rather than a tenet of belief i.e. while recognizing that such thoughts have shaped Islamic societies historically such a view is not inherent to Islam; i.e. more like the relation of Jew & Gentiles and unlike Castes and Hinduism and does not warrant detailed discussion here. pg 29 He even quotes Grenbaum to that effect that Islam was not unique for this attitude prevalent in medieval times where every civilization presumed its superiority and stellar virtues and the introduction also mentions on how Friedmann explores how this concept of superiority has influenced and evolved in theological thought.--Tigeroo 05:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I've gone and read Friedmann and have some further concerns. on page 12 he quite clearly states the limits of his work as limited to classical thought and "ethos" and does not talk about extensive modern developments or thought except for sporadically. I am moving the quote here for work before reinclusion

Islam maintains a hierarchy of religions wherein it occupies the uppermost place followed, in descending order, by Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, and polytheism. This idea of Islamic supremacy is encapsulated in the formula "Islam is exalted and nothing is exalted above it." Accordingly, Muslims are not allowed to place themselves in a position inferior to that of the followers of other religions. Pursuant to this principle, Muslim women may not marry non-Muslim men, non-Muslims may not inherit from their Muslim relatives, and a testimony of a non-Muslim is inadmissible against a Muslim. A non-Muslim who insults Islam must be put to death, according to most schools of Islamic jurisprudence, or flogged and imprisoned, according to others.

This stance is a position peculiar to Friedmann within a certain historical constraint, therefore becomes a bit of WP:OR when extended as a generalization and common rule. It also appears at places to based on a selective and partial reading of Friedmann. Simple examples,

1. The notability and widespread or even officialness of the listed hierarchy vs. social perceptions. Note Sarkhasi is am important early hanafi jurist. Hanafi's are also currently a major school, it is hard to guage from the source either way on todays ranking for the socalled hierachial ranking.
2. The importance of the Islamic supremacy concept as intrinsic Islam vs. influence on thought process. Friedmann is limited to a medieval thought process so it does not reflect any changes that may or not have taken place since. Remember jurisprudence has evolved considerably in light of revision on the social conceptions. The Modern world context interpretation of the Exalted Concept is lacking we only have an interpretation one from a Medieval social conception masquerading as a grounded law.
3. The limited influence of the "place themselves in a position inferior to that of other religions" doctrine in Islamic theology or needs better qualification vis-a-vis marraige & slaves i.e. where social vulnerable position would make one prone to interference with religious practice.
4. For the non-inheritance aspect Friedmann himself mentions that it was a minority view.
5. Amendment to non-Muslim who insults Islam, it applies to Muslims equally.

In principle the historical position of the dhimma vs. Muslim citizenry is fine, just details needs to be worked on for improved accuracy, notability and weightage.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ] (] • contribs) Tigeroo (UTC)

All of these "concerns" are solely your original research. Beit Or 19:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually most are issues raised are found in Friedmans own work. The concerns simply summed up are fall in these categories:

1. accuracy of all of these stances stemming directly from a codified principle of exaltedness (else it's extraneous)
2. the notability and non-timebound applicability of Friedman's suppositions(else it's undue weight)
3. it postulations being mirrored in other works as well.(else it's non-notable)--Tigeroo 10:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have not seen this "hierarchy of religions" concept mentioned by any other author. If nobody but Friedmann is advancing this theory, then it's not notable enough for mention. - Merzbow 21:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Friedmann is relating, for the most part, the opinion of Ibn al-Qayyim: "In addition to the unquestionable exaltedness of Islam, in some sources a hierarchy between the non-Muslim religions can also be discerned. A discussion of such a hierarchy can be found in Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya whose Aḥkām ahl-aldhimma is probably the single most comprehensive medieval work on the law applicable to the dhimmīs. In his perception, Islam is followed, in descending order, by Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism and polytheism... ... According to Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya's understanding, Christianity is second to Islam in the hierarchy of religions. It is considered better than Judaism because Christians believe in both Moses and Jesus, while Jews do not include Jesus in their list of prophets. Al-Sarakhsī contends, on the other hand, that monotheistic Judaism is better than Christianity which believes in the trinity. 139 According to all views, the Zoroastrians are one rung lower on the ladder than the Jews..." ITAQALLAH 01:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems like the opinion of just one jurist, though. - Merzbow 05:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Which is amended by another. Note that Friedmann himself is postulating a theme by "discerning" a hierarchy. There is no mention of any official or codified one. A more common and general theme more relevant here and one that is both much more easily verifiable and notable is simply that of dhimma.--Tigeroo 10:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I see no codification per se of this hierarchy in accepted Islamic law, so the text should not represent the situation as such. - Merzbow 17:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

i concur. the only distinction of note made is between those who are people of the book, and those who are not (which i believe is already mentioned). it's certainly not correct to say "Islam maintains a heirachy of religions..." ITAQALLAH 00:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What I see here is broad agreement that there is at least a heirarchy of Islam, ahl al-kitab, others. The dispute is first about the relative positions of Judaism and Christianity - which, as there does appear to be a genuine dispute among Islamic jurists, can be solved by writing "Christianity and Judaism" rather than "Christianity, Judaism. The second, whether there is any distinction between these and Zoroastrianism. Is this also being challenged?Proabivouac 00:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think "hierarchy" is still the wrong word here. It implies that those religions lower on the "hierarchy" are still valid, but lesser somehow, just as the Vice-President of the U.S. is still a recognized politician, but of less power than the President, in the hierarchy of U.S. political offices. Islamic law, however, does not consider other religions to be "valid", it just allows for their adherents to be tolerated to varying degrees. The situation doesn't fit the term "hierarchy"; I'm not sure if there is a catch-all term that fits it, so I think it best just to describe the situation without attempting to summarize it in one word. - Merzbow 02:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Friedmann saying a heirarchy "can be discerned" "in some sources" may not quite be enough to warrant us stating that "Islam maintains a heirarchy," especially when the last member is disallowed altogether. However, we do need to discuss how the ahl al kitab and how Zoroastrians fit into this, and the article currently doesn't do this. Come to think of it, the article doesn't do a lot of things since Tigeroo's last edit. I'm glad we're here discussing things, but that kind of blanking of perfectly relevant and pithily stated information is completely inappropriate for a featured article, and because it's protected, we can't fix it. I wouldn't be surprised to see it delisted.Proabivouac 04:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thankfully the process for delisting an FA is very long and involved, and seeing as this article is almost identical to the version that passed FA, the chance of that happening is very slim. Regardless, I certainly support some kind of compromise between the two versions in that diff. - Merzbow 06:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a marked distinction huge difference in this contrasted from blanking. The whole point of me pasting the material and then listing my "issues" with here was not to blank it out but so that we can up fix the issues I raised with this segment that are causing 'disinformation', and then restore the amended version back into the article, I felt it might be a simpler process than having numerous corrective edits and reverts etc because this requires a bit of an involved change. Simpler fixes that I see as can be achieved by additions or redactions I just tagged or started threads on. I will happily agree to whatever option the editors prefer as the mode the of discussion. Seeing how a couple of back and forth corrective edits appear to have gotten the article locked, I would think this is a better way.--Tigeroo 12:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

i agree with Merzbow. i would certainly like to see a compromise between the two versions (one contains too much for an introductory coverage, the other contains too little), and hopefully we can work towards developing that now before full protection is removed to save us the unnecessary warring. ITAQALLAH 14:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

OK so we have agreement on one item, the hierarchy. The next one again is the according to this principle xx and xx have occurred. Is this also a contention peculiar to Friedman or is this a more notable theme. Once again I can cite sources that can demonstrate that the principle of Exaltedness and the ensuing "Accordingly" attributions as elucidated again appears to be peculiar to the hierarchy concept Friedman is exploring. I.e. More easily verifiable sources state: Women are not to marry non-Muslims because the based on the presupposition that children adopt the father's religion. On the non-inheritance issue Friedman himself minimizes it by saying it was a minority opinion among the really early jurists (later jurists either allowed mutual inheritance or entirely disallowed mutual inheritances). Generally the listed interactions are correct but their common root is one that again one that only appears to be discerned by Friedman as a background theme. It would be more appropriate to create a general list and leave off a discussion of the underlying assumptions as this wanders into variable territory.--Tigeroo 12:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

some reasonable points, i do think mention of Islamic exaltedness is necessary. we just don't need to be excessive in providing four examples to drive the point home, when one or two can do. as for the Friedmann discussion concerning inheritance, it has been shown that its linking in to the discussion about exaltedness isn't nearly as pertinent as other examples. ITAQALLAH 14:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

My concern is not that there is a list of "manifestations", or the concept of Exaltedness. I just see the direct linkage that Friedman creates between the two as non-traditional. Typically sources ascribe a different reason as the primary directives for the above listed and different manifestations for the concept of exaltedness than the ones Friedman states. Anyrate, if other sources can be shown making the same linkage I don't have any issues with the linkage.--Tigeroo 19:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

i think you are quite right. there is a stark difference in jurisprudence between the text explicitly enacting the legal obligation/prohibition (`illa), and the speculated wisdom or rationale behind the ruling (hikma). it's certainly not the case that the theme of exaltedness is the `illa. from this perspective, the observation/linkage made by Friedmann appears to be just that (an observation) instead of a reflection of a traditional linkage, but i will go over his text again. in any case, if you are able to find good sources substantiating your point then we may move forward. regardless, as i have said above, this part of the article discussion needs to be trimmed. ITAQALLAH 16:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You are quite right. The Supremacy concept is only a hikmah the legal obligation or 'ila is traditionally based directly on interpretation of one of the two Quranic commandments. 2:221 & 60:10 with the exception being applied to men only via 5:5. Again here Friedmann is making an assessment of the "ethos" (as he himself says in his intro) rather than as the basis for a direct Islamic injunction. Also note the caveat traditional, there are different modern interpretations of the same.--Tigeroo 21:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Humphreys (again)

This latest addition to Jihad flatly contradicts the earlier part of the paragraph:

"Through history Muslims have regarded corruption, tyranny and irreligiosity within Muslim communities as even more critical targets and most Jihads have either been defensive in nature or directed at other Muslims with martyrs guaranteed a place in paradise."

This is the first part of the paragraph:

"Within Islamic jurisprudence, jihad is usually taken to mean military exertion against non-Muslim combatants in the defense or expansion of the Islamic state, the ultimate purpose of which is to establish the universal domination of Islam. Jihad, the only form of warfare permissible in Islamic law, may be declared against non-Muslims who refuse to convert to Islam or submit to Islamic rule"

Obviously both cannot remain as written, so I've reverted the latest addition. If that summary of Humphreys' views are accurate, so far he seems to be the only reliable source saying this. - Merzbow 18:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I can see no relationship between the martyrs clause and the rest of the sentence.Proabivouac 19:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

That is just another missing item. No real direct relation.--Tigeroo 20:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Even withing it's range of meaning as war on behalf of Islam, the term is often used in relation to conflicts between Muslims. Such examples include wars fought against groups of apostates rebelling against proper Islamic authority (murtaddun), dissenting groups denouncing legitimate Muslim authority (baghi), highway robbers and other violent people, and deviant or un-Islamic leadership. The determination of when Muslim leaders may call for jihad and the requisite demands that such a call makes upon the Muslim populace are developed in the legal literature.

- Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia - Section Jihad.

What we have currently is a very classical rendition. From a time when there was only one Muslim ruler and war was presumed as the natural eventuality between any two nations with hostility the norm (conquer or be conquered), in this case the Islamic Caliphate and any neighbors it may have and the presumption that it was impossible to enjoin the good and forbid the evil in lands beyond Muslim rule without persecution, making it further a struggle against persecutors to end persecution. Ergo pre-emptive conquest or rather defensive expansion. Even then we had the kharijites and various other elements who declared Jihad against the Umayyads as a matter of course. Again it ties up with what I was saying is the limited rendition of Jihad coming through in this article. There existed a definition of Jihad both before and after the "classical" version usually encapsulated by Averroes as well. Another quote:

The actual meaning of the term has nothing to do with warring or aggression. It means, rather "Striving", and is commonly used in the Quran and elsewhere as the idiomatic expression "striving in the way of God (al-jihad fi sabil Allah). This is striving to do the divine will and fulfill one's religious obligations in the Islamic context, includes protecting the religion from both outside aggressors who would dominate it and from internal sedition or subversion away from what is perceived to be the straight path established by God and his Prophet.

--Tigeroo 20:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Did not the Kharijites consider the Umayyads to have apostasized?Proabivouac 20:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

In a simplistic manner of speaking; Yes. Also note, Ibn Zubair's revolt and Ziyad ibn Ali's revolts were also Jihads, much as Abu Muslim's toppling of the Umayyads. These guys did not consider the Umayyad's apostates, just "impious".--Tigeroo 04:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see support in the quotes for language as strong as "...as even more critical targets and most Jihads..." Such phrasing still contradicts the first half of the paragraph. I would rephrase the addition as simply "Through history, Muslims have also regarded corruption, tyranny and irreligiosity within Muslim communities as targets for jihad." - Merzbow 06:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Judging only from the quoted portions above, Humphrey emphasizes jihad against internal dissent more than tyrannical rule.("apostates rebelling against proper Islamic authority", "dissenting groups denouncing legitimate Muslim authority", "internal sedition or subversion" against "deviant or un-Islamic leadership.")Proabivouac 06:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The emphasis and the sentence inserted was pretty much a paraphrase of a straight up Humphreys sentence. The quoted sections above are not from Humphreys but are both from "Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia" sorry if there was some confusion, I quoted a second source for the same information since that was what I thought Merzbow was asking for, i.e. if Humphreys was unique with that particular stance or not. As for the emphasizing internal more than tyranny, that is just a categorization system. Mentioning the categories does not denote equal weightage and I would be loathe to say the emphasis is one way of the other based on just this. The theology over "just rebellion" vs. "fitna" and the threshold between them is another large chapter in Jihad jurisprudence entirely.--Tigeroo 09:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest adding some or most of the schools of thought believe .... I thinks it's not general idea.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I think "some" in general is a weasel word to avoid, unless we followed up with specific examples. Also am not quite sure what the some is supposed to refer to, I think the sentence "Through history, Muslims have also.." is both general enough as well as broad to encompass the idea that shifts on stances and thematic variations that can be touched on in the main article better.--Tigeroo 07:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

As Merzbow has indicated, verifiable history and sources produced has shown. Jihad is not only military, nor is the Jihad al-Saif limited to non-Muslims. I propose the following the following rewrite to reconcile the obvious discrepancy:

Jihad means "to strive or struggle," and is commonly used in the Quran and elsewhere as the idiomatic expression "striving in the way of God" (al-jihad fi sabil Allah). In Islam Jihad is categorized under four archetypes: Jihad of the heart, the tongue, the hand and the sword and is waged against the devil's inducements, aspects of one's own self or against a visible enemy in a an attempt to build a godly community.

===Jihad as War===

The term Jihad used without any qualifiers is generally understood to be referring to war on behalf of Islam; either defending or propagating the faith. Islamic jurisprudence has developed a highly sophisticated doctrine of war for the regulation of Jihad. Jihad is the only form of warfare permissible under Islamic law, may be declared against apostates, rebels, highway robbers, violent groups, unIslamic leaders or non-Muslims who refuse to convert to Islam or submit to Islamic rule......

This should solve the stub quality of the current section,the preponderant dated quality of current article that keeps drawing comment. Not to mention the inaccuracies, i.e. the contradicting statement about Jihad been only against non-Muslims, the miss in the Hanafi and another I can't recall right away that sees the possibility of unlimited peace even while accepting and attempting to regulate Ibn Khalduns assumption that war is a natural part of human nature, or that the same schools accept non-Arab polytheists as dhimmis without requiring conversion. Note, everything above is substantiated from more than one source and expands the boundaries of the current section.--Tigeroo 11:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

lead image

Many religous articles of wikipedia have a lead image. This article probably should have one too.--Sefringle 03:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

the article achieved FA status without a lead image, and to be honest there's not really an image which would encapsulate the topic or represent the subject in a way expected of a lead image. i think it's best to just leave the template where it is. ITAQALLAH 16:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The intro is kind of long, and to fill the blandness, an image in the lead would probably improve the article. I picked the one you put in the front page description, because it makes the article look better as a whole, but if you have a better idea...--Sefringle 22:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

the template is just fine, and the image was more pertinent in its previous location. don't make contentious changes on a featured article without obtaining consensus. thanks. ITAQALLAH 22:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Still, an something seems to be missing from the lead, and an image would make the article look better. I think the article looks better with that image in the lead. I figured there was consensus because you didn't respond to my comment in two days.--Sefringle 22:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

the point i'm making is that there's no need for a lead image just for the sake of having one there. if there was an image encompassing the topic then it'd be worth discussing. the image about one of the five pillars, belongs in the relevant section. i suppose we should see what other think, but could you please remove the other statement for which there was no consensus to include as per its being covered later. ITAQALLAH 22:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, we'll do a straw poll to see what others think.--Sefringle 22:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll: Should there be an image in the header?

Yes

1. Sefringle 22:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
2. Arrow740 23:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
3. I think a lead image is a good idea. This one may not be the best, however; it looks like they're praying in a convention center. Perhaps prayer in the Masjid al-Haram would be a better summary?Proabivouac 00:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
4. The current image is fine. Raul654 14:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
5. i was hoping there'd be a better image, but i don't really mind the current one. ITAQALLAH 06:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
6. Looks acceptable as is. Beit Or 16:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
7. Good idea.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
8. Yes. --- A. L. M. 08:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
9. - Merzbow 19:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
10. Sure, nothing forbids it — a Muslim Іван Коренюк — Ivan Korenyuk 19:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

No

1. The image of Muslim prayer is by no means a representative of Islam. --Aminz 06:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

But would you be OK with a better image?--Sefringle 06:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what kind of image would be appropriate there, certainly not this one we have. But in general, I have no objection to having an image. --Aminz 07:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what could be more representative of Islam. Maybe this photo? -- tariqabjotu 22:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

I think the picture should have people kneeling. The whole point is submission, and that is a gesture of submission. Also Muslims are supposed to do that five times a day. Arrow740 06:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I think image of Kaba and Hajj is a better choice. I suggest using one of these images:Image:Supplicating Pilgrim at Masjid Al Haram. Mecca, Saudi Arabia.jpg or Image:Mecca skyline.jpg--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there is consensus about using an image. Which one do you prefer?--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Islam and Terrorism

Why Islam page does not contain this important topic about Islam and Terrorism. Islam rejects all forms of terrorism and condemns the actions of Osama bin laden and his followers then why we do not have such important postings there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammadkidwai (talk • contribs) 00:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• My vote is for #3 --Sefringle 04:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• #3 is best representative of Islam as it exists in the everyday life of the average Muslim. Arrow740 04:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• #2 has a spiritual quality to it. Itsmejudith 07:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• #1 first choice, #3 second choice; both are immediatly recognizable to the layman as having to do with Islam. #2 less-so. This picture must stand-alone without a caption when it hits the Main Page. - Merzbow 07:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• #2 I support in lead. --- A. L. M. 08:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
• #2 I support in lead. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 01:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The first image focuses too much on one man, who looks like he is practicing Qi Gong or is about to cast a third-level spell. It's not a gesture one associates with Islam.Proabivouac 06:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It might not be one associated with Islam for the Western World. In the Arab World, the sub-continent, Northern Africa etc. the classic "dua" pose is as easily identifiable as the "sajdah" which seems to fascinate the Western world a lot more, possible because it is more striking from their cultural perspective??--Tigeroo 15:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

This is an article on Islam with about one-billion membership. A picture focusing on one man (who is probably recognizable for those who knwo him) is thus inappropriate. The third image, which shows a group of people, none of whom is identifiable, is perfect. Beit Or 19:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• #1 It picks the central symbol of Islam the Kaaba and has the Mosque minarets and domes in the background.--Tigeroo 15:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• #3 Number three, which appeared on the main page, has grown on me.Proabivouac 02:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• #3 of course. The other two pictures show some specific places and are more appropriate in articles on them. The third one is generic and thus perfect for an introductory article on Islam. Beit Or 19:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• #2 The Kaaba is the central symbol of Islam and exists from the time of Adam and recognised around the world. → AA — 09:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• #2 - i don't mind #3 at all (#1 is less appropriate here), i personally prefer #2 over it. ITAQALLAH 18:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• #3 - just because it is the easiest to see in the thumbnail view - Maiios 13:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• #2 - :D 216.99.57.230 15:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Result

OK. That's 2 for #1, 4 for #2, and 4 for #3.--Sefringle 02:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

In other words, no preference emerges from the vote. Ask a statistician. Itsmejudith 09:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It's fair to use both #2 and #3 in the lead or find another images with expresses both of the contents(Salah and Haj) . --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 09:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Two images in the lead in one too many... honestly I'm find with any of the three, but we should stick to one. - Merzbow 04:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Merzbow.--Sefringle 04:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

analogical reasoning

There is written analogical reasoning ((qiyas)) is one the four fundamental roots of Fiqh while in Ja'fari jurisprudence 'Aql is used instead of it.

Mortaza Mutahhari has quoted:

The early Shi'ite logic concerning the first of the two trends is extremely sensitive and interesting. As for the first trend, that is, regarding the problem of justifiability or unjustifiability of qiyas, Shi'ah rejected qiyas on the basis of the express texts (nusus) of their Imams... in spite of strongly disapproving qiyas, they formally affirmed the share of reason in ijtihad. The Shi'ite fuqaha' and the usuliyyun officially recognized reason as one of the four sources of fiqh--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 19:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Twelvers viewpoint of Jihad

Twelvers distinguish between offensive jihad and defensive jihad.

• Abdulaziz Sachedina points out that in Shi’i Islam, waging an offensive

jihad requires the permission of the Imam. Abdulaziz Abdulhussein Sachedina, ‘‘The Just Ruler (al-sultan al-adil),’’ in Shi’ite Islam: The Comprehensive Authority of the Jurist in Imamite Jurisprudence (New York: 1988), 105. Quoted in Roger M. Savory (note 30), 18, 37.

He has explained this issue in another works:

• The Just Ruler in ShiʿiteIslam. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press, 1988
• The Just Ruler in Shi'ite Islam: The Comprehensive Authority of the Jurist in Imamite Jurisprudence Oxford University Press Inc (USA), 1998 (page:105, 106 and 115)

--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 03:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This looks like a reliable source. - Merzbow 04:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, too.Proabivouac 06:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

waging any kind of offensive jihad requires the permission of the Imam/leader/ruler. if we are talking about the sanctioning required from a shi'i Imam, i believe this has already been mentioned? ITAQALLAH 01:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the point is that in the twelver the Imam who can do it is in occultation so Jihad is suspended because no one is around who can ensure that it is carried out justly. I believe in later Sunni jurisprudence with the demise of the central caliphate, the clergy also picked a larger role in the sanctioning of a jihad.--Tigeroo 07:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The important fact is that offensive jihad requires the permission of the Shia Imam(divine ruler )so offensive Jihad is suspended during occultation because no one is around who can ensure that it is carried out justly. --Sa.vakilian(t-c) 14:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

location of Islam template

I origionally put this template right under the image. Now it has been moved lower. Can someone explain why?--Sefringle 21:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again

Regarding this edit, Tigeroo has made a vague argument in an edit summary that our reliable source is wrong. That is not sufficient grounds to remove cited material. Also I direct you to read surah 9 of the Qur'an, Tigeroo. Arrow740 01:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It has not been "removed", it has merely been moved here for discussion and correction, see above for the particular concerns. Also, sure I can read that but that have to do with anything, I don't see whatever you are alluding to or that contradicts with what I have proposed. I would suggest you refrain from analyzing and conducting OR on Primary sources or referring others to do the same, the results can be very varied and won't get us anywhere, just look at theologians even they can disagree on the same.--Tigeroo 07:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"Considerable work notes that this situation was not a normative Islamic prescription but dependent on polical standing." Our reliable sources and the Qur'an prove you to be wrong. Edit according to policies. Arrow740 09:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

A second time reference to an "our", assuming a "yours" or a cabal that is predisposed to oppose. Please take a back-seat on the combative approach to discussions, its not healthy. As for the edit you cite, please check all I have done there in that instance is place a tag with a rationale. That is well within policy so I am not sure what you are referring to. As for what the Quran proves on this is score, I think it proves your stance unfounded and do not see the proof that you seem to imply exists.--Tigeroo 10:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"Our" refers to those of us who are editing constructively. Do not remove sourced content. You have been disruptive here for quite some time. If you continue, some further action will be required. Arrow740 10:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:OWN, Misplaced Pages:Etiquette & Misplaced Pages:Civility. You have been rather loose with your snide remarks. I would suggest instead that you proffer structured supporting arguments and rebuttals, those would be more conducive towards formulating constructive discussions. I have not received any from you except cryptic one-liners, vague accusations of impropriety and now even vague threats. In this whole section for example, what is it about the tag or the content move? What is the issue? What is your position? What is your basis for that position? Without spelling those and eliciting responses no headway can be made. If it is about the perceived removal, note it is merely "moved" to the talk page for discussion, contribute there if you want to be constructive instead of reversion. If it is fine it can just be copied back in, else it recan be reinstated incorporating comments received. It's a little more productive than endless reversions and "hostile" editing.--Tigeroo 12:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Do we have here a scholarly disagreement? In which case we need to summarise both sides. Arrow, you know that the Qur'an is a primary source and it should not be the text itself that guides us but interpretations of the text in secondary sources, preferably recent scholarly sources in English. Itsmejudith 09:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to ask again, why is the Jihad section based exclusively on this of Encyclopedia of Islam, which purports to be the scholarly resource on Islam, but such a resource to my knowledge is not used extensively in both undergraduate and graduate studies of Islam. Even so, such a complicated and diverse topic as Jihad does not deserve to be painted with one brushstroke (ie referencing only this EofI) and in such an evidently biased manner (Jihad is shown to be only a domineering by which to enslave the world, with no regards to its spiritual significance, which should gain a lot more prominence than it has. Jihad in practice and history may have been violent, but more focus should be placed on the religious meaning of Jihad, not just its social and political meaning.

Looks like you're desperate to find any objection to this section. Beit Or 21:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks, as my comment shows, I'm not desperate as you claim, but make a valid claim against a section which is sourced dubiously. The section could be made significantly better.

Mecca or "Makkah"

This is for information of all that the "Mecca" is not the right way to spell the name of Holy City of Islam. This spelling has become obsolete for quite a long time now. I don't know why some people still insist to spell it that way. The correct and authentic spelling is "MAKKAH". This is more close to the true pronunciation of this word in Arabic and has more vocal proximity to its Arabic origin. I strongly recommend to restore the original spelling (Makkah) in this article.Thanks,mushtanda

a more accurate transcription may very well be Makkah, please refer to the Arabic manual of style, which suggests we prefer primary transcription over strict transliteration. ITAQALLAH 16:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think current scholarly usage is still almost exclusively "Mecca", so we should stick to that (unless someone can show my statement to be wrong). - Merzbow 03:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It should be called what the article is called, and consensus for the Mecca article was to call it Mecca.--Sefringle 03:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how scholarly usage can still call it Mecca, as the modern Saudi Arabian transliteration is Makkah.

It's up to the Saudis; the common English name is nevertheless "Mecca". Beit Or 21:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The Times Atlas of the World, Comprehensive edition, London, 1994, uses Makkah, as does the Philip's Essential World Atlas, London, 1994. DuncanHill 11:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

current scholarly usage appears to be Makkah, shown from various sources on the wiki page.

Non-muslims in Muslim states

In "Other religions" section, the following sentences is written: "Dhimmis are subject to legal and social restrictions as well as humiliating regulations meant to highlight the inferiority of non-Muslim subjects". This phrase is totally untrue and reflects a purely biased opinion, since no examples or explanations were given to the term "humiliating regulations". non-muslims were treated as fairly as muslims were. A verse in the Quran says:" wa itha hakamtom bayn alnas fahkomo bil'adl", meaning if you are to judge the people then do it fairly. Non-muslims even had less obligations than muslims, since they didn't have to pay alzaka (charity money).

Err... I think you have a lot of learning to do on this subject. Please see Dhimmi and read the references. - Merzbow 02:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• regarding this passage: "Dhimmis are subject to legal and social restrictions as well as humiliating regulations meant to highlight the inferiority of non-Muslim subjects." - i am curious as to what of the "humiliating regulations" extended beyond the legal/social restrictions. i find the "humiliating regulations" phrase redundant, and, as has been pointed out, needlessly lopsided. ITAQALLAH 13:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The humiliating regulations varied, but the Qur'anic injuction did not. Arrow740 21:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

the Qur'anic injunction is for them to be subdued, as is done through legal and social restrictions. ITAQALLAH 22:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• • i had made this suggestion over two days ago and there has since been not a word of objection here. despite this, we have had the typical editors popping up and reverting with vague edit summaries, and apparently not interested in discussion. if you have any objections, please speak up- else, please stop obsructing others' edits. ITAQALLAH 21:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The section on dhimmis is written in the present tense, but these regulations are not now practised anywhere in the world. And I don't know what the sentence about apostasy is doing at the end of the section. Does it have anything to do with people of other religions? Itsmejudith 18:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, did the bit about atheists and agnostics get lost again? I'll go re-add it, I don't understand why it keeps disappearing without discussion. - Merzbow 04:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow, could you check out the context of Lewis's comment about agnostics and atheists, whether it is meant to apply to a historical period (however long) or in general. My impression is that of course until the end of the Ottoman Empire agnostics and atheists were not tolerated, as they hardly were in Western Europe until the 19th century, but that now the situation will differ according to countries and how much they enshrine shari'a in their constitutions. thanks. Itsmejudith 10:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This section is about law, not history. History of Islam has its own huge section. Beit Or 21:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem to see law as a completely ahistorical phenomenon. That's not a mainstream view in Western scholarship or, as far as I understand it, compatible with the Islamic concept of law, based on fiqh and itjihad. Itsmejudith 22:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Friedmann himself makes it clear in his work that Islamic legislation was a historic phenomenon that depended on the political situation as well as through time. In his work he shows a hardening of the supremacist view and restrictions imposed as one that grew over time, from the welcome under the Umayyads to growing strictures by the 10 and 14th centuries. He also specifically limits his discussion to the classical or the 9-12th centuries while absolutely refraining from discussing the modern 18th century onwards discussions saying it lies beyond the scope of his work. Read his introduction or any academics view on Islamic jurisprudence. It is a historically evolving interpretation. The closing of the gates of ijtihad did not fossilize Islam for all time.--Tigeroo 19:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Slight editorial slant on keywords!

Hi, I'm not familiar with this actual article, but I was looking up the phrase "death cult" and Wiki auto-redirected me to to the Islam main article, which seems just a tad generalised. Furthermore, my browser's Find function didn't even pick up the string "death cult" in the actual text of the article. Is this someone taking a rather culturally insensitive web-mickey? Just thought I should say something.

that appears to have been vandalism. it has been fixed now: Death cult should redirect to destructive cult. ITAQALLAH 13:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

revivalism

Modern times (1918–present) has some problems especially what is written about revivalism. The 20th century saw the creation of many new Islamic "revivalist" movements. Groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Jamaat-e-Islami in Pakistan advocate a totalistic and theocratic alternative to secular political ideologies. Sometimes called Islamist, they see Western cultural values as a threat, and promote Islam as a comprehensive solution to every public and private question of importance. In countries like Iran and Afghanistan (under the Taliban), revolutionary movements replaced existing regimes with Islamist states, while transnational groups like Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda engage in terrorism to further their goals. For Al-Qaeda it has also been held, however, among others by the US' National Security Council, that they use a distorted version of Islam .

I think we can improve it by using Islamic revival.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 02:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

How so?--Sefringle 04:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The Sunni and Shi'a

Asalaam-u-Alikum
Kk loach 09:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)In Islam there is no place for groups but Muslims are still divided into groups.In this page there is not a sentence that grouping is not allowed in Islam Can someone plz add that.I can add but i do not want to change any thing without readers permission.Kk loach 09:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kk loach. It isn't readers' permission that you need, but a good written source. Can you find something in writing, either by a Western scholar or by a scholar of Islam, that says that Muslims should not be divided into groups? Itsmejudith 09:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

I removed the criticism section, since another articles focuses solely on that. It should not be included in this article. The christianity article doesn't contain a criticism section. The inclusion of one here is provocative and irreverent.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.159.60.241 (talk • contribs)

We need to discuss this here. I am not sure that a single section can cover all that is meant by "criticism" of a major religion but I don't accept that the article cannot carry critical material. Itsmejudith 18:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should have a small criticism section that has a link to the main article on it? And I guess if you want Christianity to have one of those, you should bring it up on talk page in Christianity. ko268 9:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The criticism section of the Christianity article is actually quite substantial.--Sefringle 06:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

article needs a renew

i think this article needs a renew by a good muslim friend it can direct people in wrong ways thinking about islam— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thereal100 (talk • contribs)

yawn. wikipedia isn't supposed to be some Islamist propaganda cite, nor is it supposed to be used for the purpose of proselytization.--Sefringle 05:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

yawn again. a protoypical response, the comment did not desire to make this article into an Islamist propaganda site, as you tritely put it, but rather significantly more balanced as evidenced from its strongly negative take on Jihad and other aspects.

repeating comments above

• regarding this passage: "Dhimmis are subject to legal and social restrictions as well as humiliating regulations meant to highlight the inferiority of non-Muslim subjects." - i am curious as to what of the "humiliating regulations" extended beyond the legal/social restrictions. i find the "humiliating regulations" phrase redundant, and, as has been pointed out, needlessly lopsided. ITAQALLAH 13:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • i had made this suggestion over two days ago and there has since been not a word of objection here. despite this, we have had the typical editors popping up and reverting with vague edit summaries, and apparently not interested in discussion. if you have any objections, please speak up- else, please stop obsructing others' edits. ITAQALLAH 21:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

since i have had no feedback on this yet still a few users resisting any significant changes to this section, i have replicated my comments here in a new section. ITAQALLAH 13:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

In answer your question, "what of the "humiliating regulations" extended beyond the legal/social restriction," see the very well-referenced (though quote-farmy) Dhimmi#Humiliation of dhimmis and the section following.Proabivouac 20:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

i'm not so certain how well-referenced one may consider that section. the prime sources for the section are Ye'or and Bostom (the latter an assistant professor of Medicine) - none of whom are exactly known for their academic objectivity. while i doubt not that the quotes aren't accurate, they may very well constitute what is known as a biased sample, not representitive of the full scale of opinions. no doubt there may have been inconsistently-implemented practices of requiring jizya to be paid in a subdued manner, but that's a social restriction - as are the restrictions on horse riding etc. as for the epithets and stone-throwing, i don't think we can exactly say that is specifically obliged by Islam or Islamic law. is there a need for this clause? perhaps as much as telling our readers things in as much detail as this - true, reliably sourced, but just unnecessary. ITAQALLAH 21:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion. "Islamic law divides non-Muslims into several categories, depending on their relation with the Islamic state. Christians and Jews living in the medieval caliphates were known as dhimmis. They paid a special tax (jizya) to the state and were considered as "protected peoples". They had communal autonomy under their own religious leaders but were subject to legal, social and religious restrictions. The status was extended to Zoroastrians and sometimes to Hindus and Sikhs but not to atheists or agnostics. The Ottoman Empire also allowed non-Muslim communities a measure of autonomy in the millet system, again with social and legal restrictions." With appropriate footnotes and internal links, of course. I know the question of dhimmi status in south Asia has been extensively discussed by historians and also on the dhimmi article talk page, but I can't remember what the consensus was. Itsmejudith 14:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

there may be too much emphasis on the Ottomans' (post-tanzimat?) millet system. the rest has some advantages over the current text, and is visibly more concise (just needs some tweaks i think). ITAQALLAH 19:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

another point

i also find the listing of four apparent examples of Islamic supremacy to be quite excessive. a few examples from Friedmann -from whom the whole narrative on supremacy is derived- seems appropriate. i'm not sure the passage from Lewis is crucial for an introductory section, the preceding examples are enough - and execution/imprisonment for insulting Islam is presumably not limited to non-Muslims anyway (it also isn't a very good example, it doesn't highlight any disparity between Muslims and non-Muslims). ITAQALLAH 19:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It highlights a disparity between Islam and other religions.

All that said, the complex edit-warring has left this section notably less organized than it once was (and its just changed again,) some reorganization is definitely in order.Proabivouac 20:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

i see. do you think four examples demonstrating Islamic supremacy is excessive? i do. i would be willing to remove the example of inheritance (not a link i believe Friedmann is making, as we discussed above), and replace it with the prohibition on insulting Islam. how does that sound? ITAQALLAH 18:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

If you are referring to these three examples, "…Muslim women may not marry non-Muslim men, non-Muslims may not inherit from their Muslim relatives, and a testimony of a non-Muslim is inadmissible against a Muslim," no, I don't think them excessive at all: they all seem like very significant points in their own right, and are stated succinctly. The accuracy of the inheritance point is another issue, of course. If it's a minority point of view, this needs to be specified, at least.Proabivouac 23:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

if it's a minority view, as it appears to be, then we must question why it has been provided as a shari' example of Islamic supremacy. i find four examples excessive, i would propose this instead: Pursuant to this principle, Muslim women may not marry non-Muslim men, directing insult towards Islam is prohibited, and the testimony of a non-Muslim is inadmissible against a Muslim. the preceding text must also be fixed, Friedmann relates these rules as examples of Islamic supremacy, not as rules derived from the principle that "Muslims must not put themselves in a position inferior to non-Muslim", which is something else discussed several pages later. ITAQALLAH 14:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

i believe i have noted this before, but the principle these rulings are pursuant to, according to Friedmann, is that of Islamic supremacy (p. 35): "The principle is expressed in the statement “Islam is exalted and nothing is exalted above it” (al-Islām ya˓lū wa lā yu˓lā), 115 and has ramifications in numerous fields of Muslim thought and practice. As we shall see later, it is the main reason for prohibiting Muslim women from wedding infidel husbands. 116 Those early traditionists who maintain (as a minority opinion) that unbelievers cannot inherit from Muslims but Muslims can inherit from unbelievers use a similar argumentation... ... The al-islām ya˓lū … ḥadīth is also considered the reason substantiating the principle that non-Muslims' testimony is not admissible against Muslims..." - as such, the p. 37 cite is a little unnecessary. i'll try to make the changes accordingly, as well as replacing the (currently) second regulation mentioned, which is a minority view. ITAQALLAH 13:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Family section + http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/clarke%20memo.pdf

Relevant diff

The Oxford Dictionary of Islam says:

"The past two centuries have seen major reforms in Islamic family law: Tunisia rendered polygony illegal on Islamic grounds and established equal rights for men and women in divorce; Turkey also forbade polygony, but as a result of a wholesale adoption of the Western legal code."

This is being removed from the article.

Also, the article uses (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/clarke%20memo.pdf) but doesn't represent it faithfully. Either this source is acceptable or not. If yes, it should be presented faithfully. --Aminz 09:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, a source might be reliable for a fact, but not for another POV. Note that secular governments can't change Islamic family law which was set in stone quite some time ago. Arrow740 11:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Jihad

jihad should be changed, i will give the Quran as a source to prove my point (arent primary sources more reliable then secondary ones?)

"But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in God: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things). (The Noble Quran, 8:61)"

(notice how muslims cant fight a jihad if the enemy wants peace, its against islamic religion to fight during peaceful times)

"God does not forbid you from showing kindness and dealing justly with those who have not fought you about religion and have not driven you out of your homes. God loves just dealers. (The Noble Quran, 60:8)"

(notice here, how it refutes that statement is wrong, jihad is supposed to be used as a response to those who try to opress the followers of islam)

"And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for God. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers. (The Noble Quran 2:193)"

(agian jihad in response to wrongdoings, not becuase someone is not muslim)

"Again and again will those who disbelieve, wish that they had bowed (to God's will) in Islam. Leave them alone, to enjoy (the good things of this life) and to please themselves: let (false) hope amuse them: soon will knowledge (undeceive them). (The Noble Quran, 15:2-3)"

(agian leave the disbelievers alone, i understand the verse is harsh, but clearly your are not to attack non-muslims just because they dont submit to muslim rule)

"If it had been thy Lord's will, they would all have believed,- all who are on earth! wilt thou then COMPEL mankind, against their will, to believe! (The Noble Quran, 10:99)"

(kind of self explanitory, dont you think?)

"Say: 'Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger: but if ye turn away, he is only responsible for the duty placed on him and ye for that placed on you. If ye obey him, ye shall be on right guidance. The Messenger's duty is only to preach the clear (Message). (The Noble Quran, 24:54)"

(everyone is reponsible for there own path, one more and thats it, i promise)

"Say : O ye that reject Faith! I worship not that which ye worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship. And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship. To you be your Way, and to me mine. (The Noble Quran, 109:1-6)"

(pretty much the same as above)

obviously the difinition of jihad is wrong, i understand you have a refrence, but honestly which source is more primary as it relates to islam, yours or mine?

also please note how i always gave the full verse, its easy to take things out of context to make your point, if you do want to refute this please give full verses not ...(signed by IP:209.27.62.219)

"Aren't primary sources more reliable then secondary ones?" No. See Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Misplaced Pages articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. Tom Harrison 01:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up, however (and i hope an admin can look in to this) it seems they are referring to new theories as it relates to discoveries, not the same as in this case, i do understand the interpretations must be by a secondary source though, but i believe at the very least i have proven that the current definition is wrong, and in that case it (the definition of jihad) should at least be modified to remove inaccuracies, right? (signed by IP:209.27.62.219)

What definition do you want to use, and what is the source? If the source is your interpretation of the Qur'an, then no. If it is a reliable secondary source, then yes, subject to due weight, etc. Tom Harrison 13:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to use my definition because I'm using a primary source (the Quran), i don't want to use my original definition since "I" was interpreting the Quran in the above paragraph (those were my own words in the parenthesis), but isn't it clear that the primary source contradicts the secondary source (the secondary source is obviously misinterpreting the primary source), i understand my definition of when jihad can and cant be posted, because it cant be verified by a secondary source since i don't have one yet, but isn't it possible to call jihad "the Islamic type of holy war" and then we can add on from there, i understand that the definition is vague, but isn't vague better than wrong? (signed by IP:209.27.62.219)

I suggest you make the edit and see what people think of it. Note too that the main article on the subject is Jihad, which this article should summarize. Tom Harrison 13:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

i cant, however i added to the "to do list", i originally wanted to change it, but i understand now (thanks for clarifying tom) that i cant interpret the primary source, and as so to remain neutral i recommend it just delete statements that we now know are false

(Within Islamic jurisprudence, jihad is usually taken to mean military exertion against non-Muslims in the defense or expansion of the Islamic state, the ultimate purpose of which is to establish the universal domination of Islam. Jihad, the only form of warfare permissible in Islamic law, may be declared against non-Muslims who refuse to convert to Islam or submit to Islamic rule. Jihad is perpetual in nature; in theory, there can be no permanent peace with non-Muslim states, only truces which can be repudiated when circumstances become favorable for the resumption of hostilities. It ceases only when Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians submit to the authority of Islam and agree to pay the jizya (a poll tax) and kharaj (a land tax), and when polytheists convert to Islam.)

i don't think the entire paragraph is false, but it would be bias to pick and choose what i think is correct from this statement without changing the secondary source that it references (signed by IP:209.27.62.219)

Please see diff for cited material that would make the section non-stub and more balanced. See diff for a concise proposed version of the same. Specific Issues:

1. Section only focuses on Jihad as war. War and the Law of Nations: A General History cites the 4 typographs of war being clearly mentioned by Abd Ar-Rahman Al-Awza as early as the 8th century. Merriam states even in classical times Jihad was classified as being beyond more than just about war. Humphreys talks of the jihad concept existing in Meccan times and evolving to include war of expansion. Firestone (medieval enc.), Humphreys and Merriam say Jihad is not only about war but that war however is a legitimate and inalienable extension of the concept of Jihad fi sabil-allah. The section almost exclusively talks about only war and gets into all sort of details.
2. Section implies that Jihad as war is only about fighting non-believers. Firestone, Merriam and Humphrey state Jihad can and has involved fighting Muslims to a greater degree.
3. Mention of requirement to convert for polytheists not 100%, all agree on requirement for the conversion of Arab polytheists. There is again a divergence by others.
4. Total omission of the important concept of Shaheed.
5. Jihad occurs in Quran as Jihad fi sabil allah and the islamic concept is very commonly translated by many as "striving in the way of god" and is a better descriptor of the concept that just the literal "striving" which is invariably always accompanied by an explanation of striving for what and whom.
6. Jihad as war has a separate term to distinguish it in fiqh.--Tigeroo 14:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

"ideological engine of war"

The material about Islam being an "ideological engine of war" is poorly sourced, strongly biased toward the present day, and too detailed for the main page on Islam. If good sources are found, it might go on one of the subsidiary pages, maybe Jihad, or Criticism of Islam. Tom Harrison 00:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I have cited 2 sources, one news source and other a well known magazine. It is included in the correct section "Criticism of Islam". Pentagon is a significant organization and its views about islam should be included in the criticism section. Also I have already included it in Criticism of Islam. Now since the statements are sourced, if you need to refute them, please bring sources opposing these statements. Then we can discuss further. Thanks. NapoleansSword 00:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

i think neither WorldNetDaily nor FrontPageMag are considered reliable sources. ITAQALLAH 00:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

World Net daily is a news source. Front Page Magazine is a non-profit publisher and not a blog. They are responsible for the materials they publish and ensure verifiability. With 2 different sources saying the same thing, there is enough evidence that the statements are valid. Again, like I said, if someone brings sources proving the contrary we can discuss. Otherwise this should stay. Thanks NapoleansSword 00:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Though I doubt they would willfully fabricate information, WND would definitely not be considered a mainstream news source, and this news item approaches an op-ed. FPM can be a good read, but is overtly and relentlessly partisan, and is hardly worthy of inclusion alongside the high-caliber academic sources we are using for this article.Proabivouac 00:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section

What do people think about integrating this section into the body of the article, like in Misplaced Pages:Criticism? Tom Harrison 20:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

No objection, but this has to happen before or at the same time as the section is removed, just blanking the section is unacceptable. - Merzbow 00:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

i think most of the first paragraph can be easily intergrated into the history section if we can note some of the early polemical responses to John of Damascus (as an example of the kind of literature prevelant in those times, i think it may be discussed in the EoI). the second paragraph would be a bit harder, not only because it's a bit recentist in focus (and, IMO, extraneous in the absense of an actual criticism section), much of it is not really discussed in academic scholarship - which typically does not pay much attention to value judgements in endeavouring to ascertain facts. ITAQALLAH 18:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I would support such a motion- it just looks weird having a criticism section about a religion.-Wafulz 20:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Itaqallah. The historical stuff is very interesting, and quite relevant to the confrontation with Christendom briefly covered in the Golden Age section. The recentist stuff might be relevant as the propagandistic component of real-world contemporary tensions related to Islam and the west, which we don't say much about at all - perhaps Modern Times could be expanded somewhat. It's pretty silly to say, "Others like Daniel Pipes and Martin Kramer focus more on criticizing the spread of Islamic fundamentalism, a danger they feel has been ignored," without ever mentioning the real-world events which inspire this criticism: if anything it should be vice-versa. For example, if 9/11 and other terroristic acts were covered - not that they should be, I don't know, but that's what Pipes and Kramer are criticizing, mostly - it would be unnecessary and anticlimactic to observe that some people are alarmed by these developments. As it is, these statements are sort of hanging there with no relation to anything in the rest of the article, sort of an arbitrary hat tip to editors who feel the same way.Proabivouac 00:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Please check the link for the first instance of the word usury, I have noticed it links to Riba rather than the correct page describing what usury means. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.239.36.43 (talk) 08:25, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Meaning of the word 'Islam'

As discussed in the archives on this topic, It makes clear in the lead of this article that 'Islam' means 'Submission'. This is correct. However, as the word Islam is 'often' misrepresented as meaning 'Peace' it needs to be made clear that the 'root' word of 'Islam' is 'Peace' (Salaam, Silm, Slm = if you go to an Islamic scholar they can explain this in more depth but the basics need to be in the lead, or at least in the article itself) - thus, in Islam true 'Peace' can be found through 'Submission' to Allah, or though 'Submission' to Allah true 'Peace' can be found. Please can it be made clear in the lead or article body that the root word is and why the confusion. Robert C Prenic 16:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. It needs to be made clear within the article that Islam means "submission" and not "peace." Besides, your addition was unsourced.--Sefringle 00:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

So an encyclopedic article without basic information? I think it should also be made clear that Islam means Submission. However, I think somewhere it the article it should show that the root word is Peace, encyclopedically. Robert C Prenic 12:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

We have discussed this point before. "Islam" means "submission" and it is related to the word for "peace". The root does not mean "peace", any more than it means submission; it delineates a semantic field that includes both those words. In any case, we can only include information that is reliably sourced. Itsmejudith 12:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

what you are talking about! Islam mean 'peace' not 'submission' which equal "isteslam" in arabic. I'm arabian if u need any help with arabic please contact me. <<Smart_Viral 12:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)>>

Ok after studying this i found 2 meanings of the word Islam:

1. literal meaning: peace or give peace as a verb.
2. implied meaning:submission and outward conforming with law of God <<Smart_Viral 01:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)>>

i think this definition:"submission and outward conforming with law of God and its derived from the same Arabic root of word Salam(peace)." will be clear, short, & meaningful for many people. <<Smart_Viral 20:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)>>

If - if - there is a consensus for this to go in, then it would have to read "same as" not "same of", which is ungrammatical in English. And "it is" rather than "its". No capital letter for "salaam". Itsmejudith 21:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Smart Viral, if the word Islam is not directly related to the word peace (which is just another variant of SLM, why single out peace over other variants?) then i don't think it merits mention in the lead. Islam means submission, in reference to submitting to God and His will. ITAQALLAH 21:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Jihad section again

Tigeroo, in this edit, you changed this:

Within Islamic jurisprudence, jihad is usually taken to mean military exertion against non-Muslim combatants in the defense or expansion of the Islamic state, the ultimate purpose of which is to establish the universal domination of Islam. Jihad, the only form of warfare permissible in Islamic law, may be declared against non-Muslims who refuse to convert to Islam or submit to Islamic rule. Jihad is perpetual in nature; in theory, there can be no permanent peace with non-Muslim states, only truces which can be repudiated when circumstances become favorable for the resumption of hostilities. It ceases only when Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians submit to the authority of Islam and agree to pay the jizya (a poll tax) and kharaj (a land tax), and when polytheists convert to Islam."

to this:

The term Jihad used without any qualifiers is generally understood to be referring to war on behalf of Islam. . Islamic jurisprudence has developed a highly sophisticated doctrine of ethical injunctions for the regulation of Jihad of the sword. "Jihad is the only form of warfare permissible under Islamic law, and may be declared against apostates, rebels, highway robbers, violent groups, unIslamic leaders or non-Muslims who refuse to convert to Islam or submit to Islamic rule Jihad has usually been taken to mean military exertion against non-Muslim combatants with the ultimate purpose of establishing the universal domination of Islam by the defense or expansion of the Islamic state against those who refuse to convert or submit to Islamic rule by paying the jizya (a poll tax) and kharaj (a land tax). Through history Muslims have regarded corruption, tyranny and irreligiosity within Muslim communities as even more critical targets and most Jihads have been directed at other Muslims with wars with even significant political overtones being classified as such.

The effect of this edit is to bury the most conventional use of "jihad" within a number of very confusing passages (e.g." …Jihads have been directed at other Muslims with wars with even significant political overtones being classified as such") referring to less central usages. Additionally, it's not particularly useful to observe that, "Islamic jurisprudence has developed a highly sophisticated doctrine of ethical injunctions for the regulation of Jihad of the sword," without specifying what any of these actually are; see Misplaced Pages:Avoid peacock terms.Proabivouac 02:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. Do edit for clarity and grammar. Comments on the theme:

1. Start with the easy one, the peacock terms, fair enough can be trimmed out. Basically jihad governs the ethics of war, and while we can easily add specifics, I reckon it will be simpler and more concise to leave them for the main article. Hope that works.
2. Next part of conventional use, I assume this is a reference to Jihad as war. Fair enough it is important enough facet to be clearly stand out. Just a note numerous comments have shown that what is conventional understanding for some on this scare is not the same for others, sources included. I added an intro showing Jihad as struggle for Islamic ideals along with the modes/classificatoins jurisprudence regards as valid means under which it can be done and is perceived.
3. You note the "Jihads have been directed.." sentence as referring to less central usages. I beg to differ with that opinion. Jihad is doctrinally a struggle, according to ones ability to change society, world and one ownself towards an Islamic ideal. That is the central purpose, the military means even if historically quite common and doctrinally important one is just one means of achieving this, which is why we have the sources saying that most Jihads were infact directed at Muslims themselves. I think it is a more central important theme that Jihad is a fight against the primacy of irreligosity. From the very beginning calls for Jihad were made against other Muslims for this very reason.

Hope that helps to show where I am coming from, the specifics can be hashed out through discussion.--Tigeroo 22:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

as a sidecomment, there are dubious and poorly-explained mass-reverts being made by Arrow740 to other settled sections, which is just disrupting this article. ITAQALLAH 23:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

i have restored much of the previous version of the jihad section as it was generally better written and less confusing; i have retained the information about the four types as discussed in Firestone, but the other material i think should first be proposed and scrutinised on talk before being inserted into the article, just so that we're all on the same page when any edits occur. thanks. ITAQALLAH 22:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. Most of the items have already been up for discussion for a good while. Editing for clarity and brevity is not an issue, just need to be sure to cover the major bases.--Tigeroo 13:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

SInce this section is extremely brief, its space is too valuable to waste it on extraneous and not especially relevant details. Beit Or 08:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Ergo it needs to cover as much as possible as quickly as possible and not be locked down overlong one on one aspect to either achieve balance or be representative of the concept.--Tigeroo 13:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm?

Can someone please explain this edit? Come on, you can't pretend that's acceptable content: it's completely unreferenced and utterly non-neutral. This is supposed to be a FA. Moreschi 10:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

the references included in the page isn't for nothing, but must get indexed. Thanks. <<Smart_Viral 10:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)>>

What? Sorry? Look, "In Modern times Terrorist organizations like Al-Quaida (which claims to be a muslim group) has been rejected by muslims worldwide as being a muslim organization. Many muslims believe that these organizations have their strings in the hands of those people to want to blame muslims" is not acceptable material. You reverted to include that. Moreschi 11:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

oops is this ok. <<Smart_Viral 11:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)>>

I've also removed the stuff about dowries. This is the main article on Islam: it's supposed to be a summary, and not go into massive detail. Moreschi 11:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Moderation in Islam issues

I was reading through the article and came upon this portion, and it feels like it is repeated, word from word, from another text. Take, for example, the Life Insurance portion--it talks on all these points concerning life insurance in islam (obviously), but it feels forced and lacks any citation. (In fact, all portions of this section lack citations, and I feel that without them it seems, again, lifted improperly.)

76.18.186.58 15:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Twelvers

Should the article not explain briefly what "Twelver" means in relation to Shi'a Islam, and say if there are other kinds of Shi'a? Perhaps a one-sentence addition could be helpful. Thanks. Itsmejudith 20:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Nerikes-Allehanda Muhammad cartoons controversy

Hello everyone, I need some help on this article, pronto. — EliasAlucard|Talk 23:40 01 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Figure of Muslims

The article claims there are between 0.9 to 1.4 billion Muslims in the world, and it gives the source as adherents. Funny, cause in Adherents site, the figure is placed at 1.5 billion. . I have changed the figure and placed 1 to 1.5 billion. --Itsalif 00:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually the same web page says that the pie chart is only a summary. The database has direct sources of populations as high as 1.78 Billion . So if no one has a problem I will add the 1.78 along with the source. MPA 03:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The cited source states of the 1.78 billion figure, "" (as they obviously are.) Games with population figures are one of the lamest and most transparent forms of POV-pushing on Misplaced Pages generally, and on this article in particular.Proabivouac 05:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

1.2 - 1.4 is the figure present in most sources i think, but i'll check up on that. ITAQALLAH 12:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Proa, you're forgetting to AGF. These are estimates and we are giving top and bottom figures that the real situation probably lies between. Itsmejudith 13:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone has again changed the figure to 0.9 billion? heck? I have changed it to 1 to 1.5 billion. Thanks. --Itsalif 16:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems that someone is getting annoyed after seeing the figures rise...216.99.62.32 18:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone has changed it back to 0.9 billion yet again.. please fix it. 216.99.49.175 19:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This page has been locked from editing. The figure has yet again placed at 0.9 billion ? What the heck?? If you want to put 0.9 billion then cite a 1981 census or something, because the source cited i.e Adherents.com places the figure to 1.5 billion. So, please change the figure to reflect the current census . Thanks --Itsalif 01:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Changes

Aminz, please provide the full quote for this strange passage and explain why the author is authoritative. Thanks.

The general understanding of Jihad by Muslims today consists of both an internal and external duty. One that gives priority to the inner struggle against evil. The external struggle includes the struggle to make the Islamic societies conform to the Islamic norms of justice. The general modern discourse on Jihad places the traditional understanding of Jihad in terms of warfare in the context of a specific time and place that has come and gone; as such Jihad is understood to be only defensive.

Arrow740 04:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It is available on books.google.com --Aminz 04:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Provide a link. Arrow740 04:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

, --Aminz 04:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Per earlier discussions I've always supported a sentence or two on the modern conception of jihad, so this should be shrunk to that size. - Merzbow 05:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I am open to suggestions. I tried to summarize the general modern view as much as I could. --Aminz 06:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this one is shorter: "The general modern understanding of Jihad by Muslims today gives priority to the inner struggle against evil. As an external duty, it focuses on the struggle to make the Islamic societies conform to the Islamic norms of justice while places the warfare understanding of jihad in the context of a specific time and place that has come and gone; as such Jihad is understood to be only defensive." --Aminz 06:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Frozen slice of history argument and incomplete synopsis of the concept: Negating modern conceptions is kind of an inversed presentism as is a lack of mention on other facets of the Islamic concept.

Not modern argument: I have previously cited numerous sources that discuss the four kinds of Jihad dating to as early as the 8th century and the Sufi conception as early as the 12th century. These are both during the early periods of Islam and times of significant theological works. Humphrey and multiple other sources also show the concept of Jihad existed during the Meccan period and evolved into including war later in the Medinan. Seeing as how these thoughts have been in circulation and mentioned in major works I am not sure what constitutes "modern thought". Maybe refinements and greater emphasis because of the shift in perception on war with its historic social glamor fading.

Factually incorrect argument: The expression of Jihad militarily even in Islamic theology terms is not defined as only about fighting the infidel and the jizya.

Not Undue weight argument: Definitely war became a popular and political expedient expression of Jihad and has lately lost the same but all this clearly demonstrates that it was not the definition of Jihad. Other forms are invariably almost always mentioned as well so again I have no idea where you get impression that they are unimportant. A source has even been cited that more Jihads were declared against Muslims that non-Muslims so the narrow vision focus of only against non-Muslims is itself actually an expression of undue weight.--Tigeroo 09:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This was also discussed here. Maybe we have to list every applicable source on this subject on the talk page, and then modify the paragraph to give emphasis to each aspect of jihad according to the weight the listed sources give it. - Merzbow 21:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

To Merzbow: It is always best to use various sources and combine their information. Hopefully they do not contradict :) Merzbow, I would appreciate if you could come up with a short summary.

To Tigeroo: Of course Muslims were not naturally uniform in their approach to expansion of the Islamic rule, etc etc. Even in military expansions, some were looking for money, some had religious motives, etc etc. Motivations were different. --Aminz 02:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

<reset> this is what Reuven Firestone (1999) says, p. 17-18:

The Meaning of Jihād

The semantic meaning of the Arabic term jihād has no relation to holy war or even war in general. It derives, rather from the root j.h.d., the meaning of which is to strive, exert oneself, or take extraordinary pains. Jihād is a verbal noun of the third Arabic form of the root jahada, which is defined classically as "exerting one's utmost power, efforts, endeavors, or ability in contending with an object of disapprobation." 14 Such an object is often categorized in the literature as deriving from one of three sources: a visible enemy, the devil, and aspects of one's own self. There are, therefore, many kinds of jihād, and most have nothing to do with warfare. "Jihād of the heart," for example, denotes struggle against one's own sinful inclinations, while "jihād of the tongue" requires speaking on behalf of the good and forbidding evil. 15 Various activities subsumed under jihād are said by Muhammad to distinguish true believers who are loyal to God's Prophet:

Every prophet sent by God to a nation (umma) before me has had disciples and followers who followed his ways (sunna) and obeyed his commands. But after them came successors who preached what they did not practice and practiced what they were not commanded. Whoever strives (jāhada) against them with one's hand is a believer, whoever strives against them with one's tongue is a believer, whoever strives against them with one's heart is a believer. There is nothing greater than a mustard seed beyond that in the way of faith. 16

Muhammad is also credited with saying: "The best jihād is a word of justice to a tyrannical ruler." 17

The qualifying phrase "in the path of God" (fi sabīl Allah) specifically distinguishes the activity of jihād as furthering or promoting God's kingdom on earth. It can be done, for example, by simply striving to behave ethically and by speaking without causing harm to others or by actively defending Islam and propagating the faith. Jihād as religiously grounded warfare, sometimes referred to as "jihād of the sword" (jihād al-sayf), is subsumed under the last two categories of defending Islam and propagating the faith, though these need not be accomplished only through war. When the term is used without qualifiers such as "of the heart" or "of the tongue," however, it is universally understood as war on behalf of Islam (equivalent to "jihād of the sword"), and the merits of engaging in such jihād are described plentifully in the most-respected religious works. 18 Nevertheless, Muslim thinkers, and particularly ascetics and mystics, often differentiate between the "greater jihād" (al-jihād al-akbar) and the "lesser jihād" (al-jihād al-aṣghar), with the former representing the struggle against the self and only the "lesser jihād" referring to warring in the path of God.

i don't believe that the various categorisations of jihad are a modern conception, the distinction was made by as early as Ibn al-Qayyim. ITAQALLAH 12:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Earlier, Eight century by Abd Ar-Rahman Al-Awza in a treatise dealing with Jihad. Enien and Humphreys say the military expression of Jihad came out in Medinan period, it existed in the Meccan period as well in the non-military sense.--Tigeroo 18:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow, the issue with the earlier arguments made for the position was the lack of sources substantiating that stance. Since that discussion multiple sources have been incorporated to substantiate those positions. As editors begin to edit gaps in information are closed. That is the strength of multiple editors, one can bring to light what others have missed and thus improve the informative value and accuracy of the content. Note the sources references and added since then do not really conflict with what was there initially, they add to it and improve its accuracy improving the collection of, as wikipedia puts it: "human knowledge". I don't really see the problem, the initial entry was not really inaccurate, it was just not complete.--Tigeroo 18:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You know guys what I think the problem is. I think Jihad is a general concept. Within one specific Islamic science, i.e. "Islamic jurisprudence" which deals with legal issue, it had a more specific meaning. Within Islam as a whole, its meaning is broader. I think the confusion arises from the fact that this relevant section seems to give undue weight to Fiqh without mentioning the general meaning of Jihad in Islam first; it doesn't talk about the meaning of jihad within say the Islamic science of Akhlaq (ethics). I guess it is only within "Islamic jurisprudence" that the majority view of traditional and modern Muslims differ. Just my 2 cents. --Aminz 19:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. I know Lewis and Britannica hold to the narrower view of jihad, and from the earlier discussion it seems that EoI does (I don't have EoI myself though). And from the above quote, "When the term is used without qualifiers such as "of the heart" or "of the tongue," however, it is universally understood as war on behalf of Islam..." So I think the meaning of unqualified jihad is still the most notable meaning, and should be listed first. - Merzbow 19:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you Merzbow with perhaps one qualifier: according to the first source, within the modern discourse of jihad, the priority is given to the inner struggle against evil. --Aminz 19:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

When Britannica presents the concept in condensed form it does not emphasize war but goes for the wider concept as well. See this from Britannica concise. Even Britannica seems to have some trouble with this issue, but it always launches into the four types almost immediately. I don't see any serious issue with moving the line, "Jihad without any qualifiers .. war" up so that it appears much earlier in mention but gets fleshed out more only later after the other aspects of Jihad have also been covered. Weight by first mention?--Tigeroo 23:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually the first p of the Britannica entry does give the "war" meaning - "jehad (“struggle,” or “battle”), a religious duty imposed on Muslims to spread Islam by waging war; jihad has come to denote any conflict waged for principle or belief and is often translated to mean “holy war.”". The second paragraph goes into the alternate meanings. The war meaning should get a sentence, followed by mentions of the others- Merzbow 17:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Friedmann (2003), p. 38
2. Friedmann (2003), p. 35
3. Friedmann (2003), p. 37
4. Friedmann (2003), p. 35
5. Lewis (1984), p. 39
6. ^ "Djih®°d". Encyclopaedia of Islam Online. {{cite encyclopedia}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
7. ^ Firestone (1999) p.17
8. See:
   • Firestone (1999) p.17
   • Merriam (1999) p.571
9. See:"
   • Humphreys (1999) p.174-176
   • Merriam (1999) p.17

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Old requests for peer review
• NA-Class Religion pages
• NA-importance Religion pages
• WikiProject Religion articles
• Externally peer reviewed articles
• Externally peer reviewed articles by The Denver Post
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists, unused