Talk:Jihad - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BrandonYusufToropov (talk | contribs) at 13:45, 27 November 2004 (→Suggestion for compromise). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 13:45, 27 November 2004 by BrandonYusufToropov (talk | contribs) (→Suggestion for compromise)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Warning: This article got many sections duplicated numerous times. It got to 734KB in size, and became impossible to edit. I locked the page and have attempted to fix it as best I can, all the duplicated sections are now removed. However, some comments may have gone missing in the fixup (which was messy). This was not intentional. If you have your comments missing then please just readd them! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:32, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Also, an archive of this page can be found at Archive1 and Talk:Jihad/Archive2. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:33, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sixth Pillar of Islam

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

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

Section titled "Islamist terrorism" is POV

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

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

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

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

72 virgins is an Islamophobe misinterpretation

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

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

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

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

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

Here is a specific quote:

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

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

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

Evidence from hadiths:

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

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

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

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

The "72 virigins of paradise" are called Houris in Arabic. There is already a Misplaced Pages article about this issue. But since you insist that the Islam does not say that Muslim men will have sex with the houris, here is proof from the Qur'an that Islamic paradise is carnal and involves sex (at least for the Muslim men in paradise):

"So and We shall marry them to Houris with wide lovely eyes."

The words "marry" in conjunction with "wide lovely eyes" are sexually suggestive. Combined with the Misplaced Pages entry on "houris" it can no longer be denied that Islam promised martyrs a carnal paradise involving sex with 72 virgins. --Pename 01:41, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

My recent edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If it's "suicide bombing", no cleric approves of it

Muslim clerics approve of legitimate resistance attacks, not suicide bombings or homicide bombings or terrorist attacks. The editor is mixing terms to make the clerics look like terrorist promoters. It is a different definition, similar to the likes of Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell applauding US Marines engaging in suicidal missions.

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

The link provided does not name the United States.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Muhammad had no poets murdered

This is a typical Islamophobic smear. In fact, everything in the article from this line forward has nothing to do with Jihad and is mainly editorial "original research" by an Islamophobe editor. See Talk:Abu 'Afak and Talk:Asma bint Marwan "However, it is not entirely clear who is and who is not an "innocent person," nor is it entirely clear what qualifies as "creating disorder in the land." Muhammad concidered poetry against his new religion to be a form of "creating disorder in the land" and silenced a number of great poets of his day by having them murdered. " The excerpts from the Qur'an are not related to Jihad as even the editor admits: "The Qur'an uses the term jihad only four times, none of which refer to armed struggle. As such, the use of the word jihad, in reference to holy Islamic war, was a latter day invention of Muslims. However, the concept of holy Islamic war was not itself a latter day invention, and the Qur'an does contain passages laying out the theory and practice of armed struggle (qi'tal) for Muslims." These sections are all irrelevant to Jihad (except as it is misinterpreted by Islamophobes) and so it will all be deleted or moved to appropriate articles for NPOV sake. --Alberuni 02:03, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Fixing Pename's mess

This will take some time... starting with the section I just edited:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The paragraph on jizya IS relevant, and its relevance is explained in the discussion here titled #What do Zakat and Jizyah have to do with Jihad? --Pename 02:48, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

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

So is this.

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

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

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

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

Thoughts on this article

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

As Islamic "Holy War"

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

What Islamic legal tradition? References to this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Liberal Muslims, today, dispute its necessity."

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

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

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

Warning! Weasel words! Who says this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(more to come)

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

I'm glad to see you agree with so many of my points. See my edits for my answers to a lot of these issues. - Mustafaa 03:38, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

Political military authority

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

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

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

Seems OK.

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

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

I would add:

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

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

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

Islamist terrorism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which proponents is the article referring to?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fair point I think.

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

Seems OK, however someone may disagree.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Muhammad had no poets murdered

Fixing Pename's mess

This will take some time... starting with the section I just edited:

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

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

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

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

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

The paragraph on jizya IS relevant, and its relevance is explained in the discussion here titled #What do Zakat and Jizyah have to do with Jihad? --Pename 02:48, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

So is this.

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

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

Great New Article Feature: TIMELINE!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article has been turned into an anti-Islam screed by an arrogant hatemonger

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

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

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

Pename, any revisions to this article should be discussed in Talk FIRST

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edits to this article should be discussed in Talk first

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

OneGuy Introduces new rule: NO QUOTING MILITANT MUSLIMS!

OneGuy has started a campaign of deleting any quotations about JIhad made by militant Muslims, such as Dr. Abdullah Azzam (who was not even a terrorist, but merely a freedom fighter during the Afghan Jihad, i.e. a person who fought the defensive Jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan). So according to OneGuy, any Muslim who takes part in defending Muslim lands is automatically disqualified as a source of information about Islamic laws regarding Jihad, even if the person in question is holds a Master's degree in Islamic Law from the oldest and most prestigeous Islamic University in the world (University of Al-Azhar), and even if the Grand Mufti (highest religious authority) of Saudi Arabia agrees with the person in question. Moreover, in the quotes that OneGuy deleted, Dr. Azzam was merely paraphrasing the famous classical Islamic scholars such as Ibn Kathir and the legal rulings of the four madhabs. Yet we are to believe that anything Azzam says about Jihad must be false because OneGuy has called Azzam a "militant Muslim." This means that according to OneGuy only "Muslims" who completely reject armed Jihad (i.e. miliant Islam in all its forms) are legitimate sources of information about what traditional Islam really says about Jihad. So long as OneGuy and Alburundi are allowed to edit this article, it will never come anywhere close to NPOV - it will just be an extremly misleading series of Islamic apologetics, unworthy of inclusion in a resource that calls itself an "encylopedia." --Pename 03:26, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

Hello, Mr. Angry Frustrated Hate-Filled Anon User

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

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

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

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

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

Banu Qurayza Were not Prisoners of War?

The Jewish tribe of the Banu Qurayza was defeated in war by the Muhammad's army when the Banu Qurayza surrendered to Muhammad's army. The Banu Qurayza were then made prisoners (of war). THEN the all men in the Banu Qurayza tribe were executed because they refused to fight against Muhammad's enemies (which Muslims claim was an act of treason). The women and children of the Banu Qurayza were turned into slaves (i.e. enslaved PRISONERS of WAR). Therefore, contrary to OneGuy's idiotic claim, the Banu Qruayza were in fact POWs. --Pename 03:26, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. I did not post anything from Answering Islam.

2. "Notice the judgement on Bani Quraiza was made by Sad (not Muhammad)." <-- the hadith explains that Muhammad told Sad to decide what to do, Sad told Muhammad that his decision was too kill all 800 or so able bodied male prisoners of war of the Banu Qurayza tribe, and then Muhammad approved of Sad's decision by announcing that Sad's decision was the same as King Allah's decision. Therefore Muslims believe that it was not merely Sad's decision, but Allah's decision.

3. What exactly does this hadith contradict? How does it prove that the Bani Qurayza were not prisoners of war, as you claimed? The topic of this talk section is whether or not the Bani Qurayza were prisoners of war. It has nothing to do with Answering-Islam.org. --Pename 08:37, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

saad.ghauri 23 Nov 2004

Alburundi's latest lie: executing prisoners of war forbidden by the QUr'an!

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

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

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

"What is your source for the claims you are making?" <--- the source of my claims is in the section titled "Execution of Prisoners of War" (the contents of which you keep deleting and replacing with your lies). Note that you are deleting sections with information that is completely referenced, and you are deleting said sections without any discussion. And yet you are the one running around telling everyone that everything you say is NPOV and that they must first discuss with you any edit they wish to make. --Pename 03:51, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

It's not just me, edits on controversial subjects are achieved through consensus. I've learned this Misplaced Pages process by working with the hardest headed crowd you can imagine. If you want to continue editing the article, you should bring the section here so it can be discussed. There's no rush. You don't get to insert anything you think is accurate and neutral until it has been reviewed and accepted. Sorry, if you think you are better than everyone else, you should find another place to ply your wares. --Alberuni 04:12, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Chechen Sex Slaves!

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

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

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

Attempting to End the Reversion War

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

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

Alberundi's Quest to Quietly Delete Two Important Subsections

Excerpts from the Qur'an on warfare

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

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

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

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

Offensive Jihad as a Method for the Propagation of Islam

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

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

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

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

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

More twisting from Pename

He inserted this verse in the article:

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

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

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

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

"where did get this translation. None of the other official online translations use the phrase "made a great slaughter" <--- there's no such thing as "official translation" of the qur'an, but in any case the words "made slaughter in the land" appear i Pickthal's world famous translation which is available online:

PICKTHAL: It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land. Ye desire the lure of this world and Allah desireth (for you) the Hereafter, and Allah is Mighty, Wise. (8:67) --Pename 21:43, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

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

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

Ugh

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

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

RickK: The first time around, you only idenfified ONE concrete example of a copyright violation ("Verdict on the Qur'an"), which (granted) was a direct plagerism inserted by an anon. That plagerism was deleted before you even pointed it out. When you were repeatedly asked, in the talk section titled #134.22.70.218.27s edits, where you thought the copyright violations occured (in so much other content that you deleted), you simply left the discussion without explaining yourself.

Now here you are AGAIN making vauge accusations of copyright violations without explaining WHERE AND WHEN the alleged copyright violations occured. Please keep such accusations to yourself until you are able to specify exactly where the copyright violations are and where they have been copied from. Next time you decide to delete content from the article on the basis of copyvios, please indicate in the talk section EACH paragaph and sentence you are deleting and explain specifically why you believe that those sentences are copyright violations. --Pename 21:53, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Ta bu shi da yu: (What part of "take to talk" didn't you understand? rv (again))

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

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

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

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

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

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

15:59, Nov 21, 2004 Stereotek (rv. to last (and IMHO better) version )

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

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

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

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

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

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

First and MOST IMPORTANTLY, I started the this talk section BEFORE I made the latest reversion and said "I am reverting the article...to PUT AN END TO THE REVERT WAR." I started this talk section ABOUT the edits, and THEN made the edits. But even before today, I have been trying to make the exact same edits, and have started multiple talk sections at the following times and places:

On 22 Nov 2004 early in the day (UTC) I started the talk section #Attempting to End the Reversion War.
At the same time, started the talk section titled #Alberundi's Quest to Quietly Delete Two Important Subsections

As anyone can see, I have done my utmost to engage in debate over this most recent major edit as well as any and every past edit made to the article. If you have not noticed, the majority of recent talking in the talk sections is done by me - almost half of the talk sections in this page were initiated by me. --Pename 00:03, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--Pename 23:00, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

--Pename 23:00, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

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

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

Debate over replacing "Terrorism" with "Martyrdom Operation"

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

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

Here is what the article says:

"In the 20th century, the spectre of terrorism carried out by extremist fundamentalist Muslims began to haunt the Muslim world ... The vast majority of Muslims reject the wanton killing of innocent civilians. Only a fringe element of extremists are responsible for terrorist incidents"

How exactly is this POV? Are you suggesting that we are not allowed to talk about terrorst acts carried out in the name of Jihad in an article about Jihad? --Pename

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

* "Spectre of terrorism is a POV term. " <--- okay this has now been reworded.

* "Also, with regards to terrorism, I'm not saying don't talk about terrorism" <--- this seems to contradict your earlier statement (above) that " "terrorism" is a POV term in this article, I don't blame Alberuni for changing this to "martydom operations".

* "Incidently, if you read carefully I was talking about, it was the title that refered to Terrorism that was changed to martyrdom operations. "<--- no, you said " "terrorism" is a POV term in this article --Pename 01:19, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Then I didn't make myself clear. I was referring to the only section I can see in the edit history that refers to "martrydom operations", which was a section title. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:42, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Problem with Islamophobes

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disputed sources

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

Who is Abudllah Yusuf Azzam? Perhaps Pename could make an article about him? How do I know where he stands on issues? How do I know that he represents all Muslims (you appear to me to make out that all Muslims beleive what this man says), can you create an article on him?

Should be Abdullah Yusuf Azzam. Just another typo by the unilateral editor..

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

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

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

Azzam is widely viewed as the father of modern Islamism. He was an extremist and his views have been influential to the militant movement. There is no such thing as "Orthodox" Islam. That's another Orientalist misconception, applying terms from Christian and Jewish sects and hierarchies on Islam. Like the comparisons between Jihad and the terms Pename mixes together incorrectly: "international humanitarian" "law of war". If Anti-Christians were to apply Pename's method to Christian concepts, they could extract the Bible's brutal passages about stoning adulterers, for instance, and claim that Christianity is a primitive and barbaric religion that violates human rights and has no place in the modern world. The guy is a bad joke. --Alberuni 03:21, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My response to Pename

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

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

Allow me to continue: I'm sorry, but I did not ask a profoundly stupid question. I am asking this because I am (obviously) not an expert on this article, and your edits appeared to make sweeping statements not backed up by an external source. Also:

you have not stated why "jizya" is related to this article. You might note that I haven't said that it has nothing to do with the article, I am merely asking you to clarify your statements. They seemed POV to me.

This is exactly the sort of reasons that I have stopped editing the article. Section 15 of this talk page is titled #What do Zakat and Jizyah have to do with Jihad?. I started this section a LONG time ago. Yet here you are, declaring that I have not stated why jizya is related to this article. Jizya is related to the subsection on "Offensive Jihad as a Method for the Propogation of Islam." The Muslims used to invade non-Muslim countries, impose Muslim imperial rule, and then impose a relatively hefty tax for non-Muslims only, called jiyza. As the Encylopedia Brtiannica explains, "many converted to Islam in order to escape the tax." Thus jiyza was a central part of the system that allowed Muslims to use Offensive Jihad as a method for the propogation of the Islamic faith. This is clearly spelled out in the article itself, and in numerous places in the talk page. Yet instead of arguing against the actual content, you are here ONCE AGAIN asking what jiyza has to do with Jihad. Either you are incredibly stupid or incredibly dishonest. Either way, it's enough reason for me to abandon the editing effort. --Pename 05:05, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

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

Your questions are not stupid. His whole perspective is insanely bigoted and twisted. He can't read and interpret anything accurately because he is full of hate and bile. If he wants to discuss each edit individually we will be here forever because nothing can sway him from his obsessive phobia. I hope he keeps his promise this time. --Alberuni 05:48, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I would prefer it if he would write from a neutral point of view, treat the opinions of others fairly and address the questions I have of this article. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:07, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Pename

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

On the cusp of a BOO word

Peace --

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brandon Yusuf Toropov

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

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

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

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

"Don't twist my words. I only pointed out that he had objections to the words you used" <--- Don't lie in front of everyone. You said, "He was referring to the way that Pename insists on using the word "Terrorist" in his article edits." And then I pointed out to you that Yusuf was not just objecting to the way that I was using the word "Terrorist," but rather that Yusuf was objecting to any and all use of the the word itself. --Pename 08:27, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

I really must insist you stop engaging in personal attacks. Don't call me a liar. Until you can do this, I see no point discussing this topic with you directly, and will continue asking my questions (even if you decide not to respond). - Ta bu shi da yu 10:17, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

"Terrorism is a word we frown on" <--- Who is "we?" Are you speaking on behalf of all wikipedia contributors? Or are you saying that Misplaced Pages has an official policy against the use of the word "terrorism?" If such a policy exists, is there a wikipedia entry about it, like there's an entry about NPOV?

"We" would be Misplaced Pages, where we try to remove POV language to try to achieve a neutral point of view. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:46, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In any case, your statement that "Terrorism is a word we frown on" contradict your earlier statements in #Debate over replacing "Terrorism" with "Martyrdom Operation" where you said:

"Also, with regards to terrorism, I'm not saying don't talk about terrorism" - Ta bu shi da yu

and "By the way, I agree they are terrorists" - Ta bu shi da yu 23:26, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Please define terrorism. Thanks. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:44, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

Please. Terrorism is a value judgement. The sun not being frozen is a fact. These are two seperate things. Perhaps you should read non sequitur? You know, you asked me to read the terrorism article, but you don't appear to have read it yourself. From Terrorism:

The use of the terms terrorism and terrorist is politically weighted, as these terms (and historically, other terms like them) are often used in propaganda to drum up support in opposition to the designated "terrorists." Governments that support the use of violence against civilians will tend to dissociate themselves from the term, and will instead use neutral or positive terms to describe combatants they approve of – such as freedom fighters, patriots, paramilitaries, militants, comrades or activists, all of which can be ambiguous.

Please review and get back to me. Thanks. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:13, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

Where we read from Pename:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"The major conclusion of section fifteen is that the expression hūr cīn means 'white (grapes), jewels (of crystal)' and not 'dark, wide-eyed (maidens)'"

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

BYT

Suggestion for compromise

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

Wereldburger758

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sixth Pillar of Islam

Section titled "Islamist terrorism" is POV

72 virgins is an Islamophobe misinterpretation

My recent edit

If it's "suicide bombing", no cleric approves of it

Muhammad had no poets murdered

Fixing Pename's mess

Thoughts on this article

As Islamic "Holy War"

Political military authority

Islamist terrorism

Muhammad had no poets murdered

Fixing Pename's mess

Great New Article Feature: TIMELINE!

This article has been turned into an anti-Islam screed by an arrogant hatemonger

Pename, any revisions to this article should be discussed in Talk FIRST

Edits to this article should be discussed in Talk first

OneGuy Introduces new rule: NO QUOTING MILITANT MUSLIMS!

Hello, Mr. Angry Frustrated Hate-Filled Anon User

Banu Qurayza Were not Prisoners of War?

Alburundi's latest lie: executing prisoners of war forbidden by the QUr'an!

Chechen Sex Slaves!

Attempting to End the Reversion War

Alberundi's Quest to Quietly Delete Two Important Subsections

Excerpts from the Qur'an on warfare

Offensive Jihad as a Method for the Propagation of Islam

More twisting from Pename

Ugh

Ta bu shi da yu: (What part of "take to talk" didn't you understand? rv (again))

Debate over replacing "Terrorism" with "Martyrdom Operation"

The Problem with Islamophobes

Disputed sources

More questions for Pename!

My response to Pename

Pename

On the cusp of a BOO word

Suggestion for compromise