![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
This article seems to imply a unified Islamic tradition, but later says that global opinion is mixed. Few details are given about which scriptures, leadership authorities, or schools of thought command significant followings. If these details (including sources, which are somewhat lacking for the existing claims about "traditional" teachings) are added to later sections, the intro can be repaired to avoid favoring a specific interpretation. The section "Who can authorize defensive jihad?" is decidedly unitary. The parallel section in offensive jihad also needs to be fixed; see Talk:Offensive jihad. -- Beland 04:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
It's clearly POV to advise readers on how they should make their decisions...
This seems to imply that the Quran is not the word of man, which is a non-neutral statement. It seems the paragraph containing this and the above statement will have to be re-worked.
Well, this is clearly not a NPOV statement, but mostly only because the article makes the claim directly, rather than citing an authority. It also seems likely that this claim is not universally believed by Muslims. I'm not sure whether the quote above from Abdullah Yusuf Azzam is authorizing both defensive and offensive jihad, or just defensive, since it is a bit choppy. It seems likely that some religious or secular leader has authorized an offensive jihad in the last few hundred years. It would be nice to have some examples, or in the alternative to note that no notable figures have done so.
A good fix for this section would involve adding context about which sects of Islam believe what, and what scriptures or leaders they cite as the basis for their beliefs. For example, a more complete quote from the Encyclopedia of the Orient show differences between sects which are ignored or denied by the current article:
Unfortunately, the Imam article there gives five different interpretations of the word "imam", only one of which (and not for the same sect) is "Caliph". Also, for reasons of accuracy, it's preferable to read and cite primary and secondary sources directly, rather than relying on other encyclopedias. This is a long-term goal, but in this case the encyclopedia cited is not sufficient for our needs.
-- Beland 03:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
This article seems to be an older version of " offensive jihad" with a less appropriate name and a lot more spelling errors. I'm not clear what this article's raison d'être is supposed to be. AnonMoos 23:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
This page isn't an encyclopedia entry, it's more like a creative writing effort. Whoever authored it thus far made it with the intent of pushing a point rather than conveying information. This entire article should either be rewritten from scratch, or deleted altogether. Amibidhrohi 18:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
So does that mean we should have a similar article for Christian crusades? I've heard some leaders and/or political figures call for crusades occasionally. ;)
( Antelope In Search Of Truth 05:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC))
This article would greatly be enhanced if we could reduce all opinion of Islamic scholars to references to Quran and Hadith, or at least detail their paradigm of reasoning. I'm a bit tired of confusing snippets from so-and-so scholar from 10th century or whatever, without any supporting rational. For example, apparently it is mandatory for the Muslim leader to send out an army every year on Jihad. Seemingly not mandated by the Quran or the Hadith, is this simply mimicking hisotrical events as occured in the war between Medina and Mecca, or is this an undisputable aspect of Islamic revelation that's hidden away somewhere? The doctorine of Jihad in Shariah as we know it was coined around the same time the Islamic state moved from one centered on Arabia to one with Imperalists ambitions abroad. Prior to this, Jihad was discussed in the context of the war against the Arabian pagans, and later Byzantium and Persia. All had conflicts with the early Muslims, and so it is hard to abstract theological teachings of Islam with interpretations of Islam that support an Imperalist agenda.
In short, more evidence and less spin please. Some of us actually want an informative article.
Islam is a very tricky religion to study, as it is so intertwined with the history of Muhammad and his followers. However, literalists refuse to reocgnize this, and polemicists don't want to recognize this fact as it interferes with their spin.
Absolutely, how would a chrsitians feel if i were to quote an exalted cyclops of the KKK ? (
Truth 06
15:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC))
the tone of this article is weird. i cant put my finger on it, but it needs to be changed. Someone who has time do it. ( Truth 06 15:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC))
the article is pretty good according to me and should not mean any offense to anyone as it is only for knowdledge purpose —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.193.120.17 ( talk) 05:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with merging this article with Jihad. Because that article is long and also we should expand this article too.
The Combative jihad or Defensive Jihad is completely another article. I think we shouldn't merge this article with another articles-- Sa.vakilian 18:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I've attempted to add sources, cleanup the article and remove any POV. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 15:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
This article seems to imply a unified Islamic tradition, but later says that global opinion is mixed. Few details are given about which scriptures, leadership authorities, or schools of thought command significant followings. If these details (including sources, which are somewhat lacking for the existing claims about "traditional" teachings) are added to later sections, the intro can be repaired to avoid favoring a specific interpretation. The section "Who can authorize defensive jihad?" is decidedly unitary. The parallel section in offensive jihad also needs to be fixed; see Talk:Offensive jihad. -- Beland 04:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
It's clearly POV to advise readers on how they should make their decisions...
This seems to imply that the Quran is not the word of man, which is a non-neutral statement. It seems the paragraph containing this and the above statement will have to be re-worked.
Well, this is clearly not a NPOV statement, but mostly only because the article makes the claim directly, rather than citing an authority. It also seems likely that this claim is not universally believed by Muslims. I'm not sure whether the quote above from Abdullah Yusuf Azzam is authorizing both defensive and offensive jihad, or just defensive, since it is a bit choppy. It seems likely that some religious or secular leader has authorized an offensive jihad in the last few hundred years. It would be nice to have some examples, or in the alternative to note that no notable figures have done so.
A good fix for this section would involve adding context about which sects of Islam believe what, and what scriptures or leaders they cite as the basis for their beliefs. For example, a more complete quote from the Encyclopedia of the Orient show differences between sects which are ignored or denied by the current article:
Unfortunately, the Imam article there gives five different interpretations of the word "imam", only one of which (and not for the same sect) is "Caliph". Also, for reasons of accuracy, it's preferable to read and cite primary and secondary sources directly, rather than relying on other encyclopedias. This is a long-term goal, but in this case the encyclopedia cited is not sufficient for our needs.
-- Beland 03:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
This article seems to be an older version of " offensive jihad" with a less appropriate name and a lot more spelling errors. I'm not clear what this article's raison d'être is supposed to be. AnonMoos 23:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
This page isn't an encyclopedia entry, it's more like a creative writing effort. Whoever authored it thus far made it with the intent of pushing a point rather than conveying information. This entire article should either be rewritten from scratch, or deleted altogether. Amibidhrohi 18:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
So does that mean we should have a similar article for Christian crusades? I've heard some leaders and/or political figures call for crusades occasionally. ;)
( Antelope In Search Of Truth 05:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC))
This article would greatly be enhanced if we could reduce all opinion of Islamic scholars to references to Quran and Hadith, or at least detail their paradigm of reasoning. I'm a bit tired of confusing snippets from so-and-so scholar from 10th century or whatever, without any supporting rational. For example, apparently it is mandatory for the Muslim leader to send out an army every year on Jihad. Seemingly not mandated by the Quran or the Hadith, is this simply mimicking hisotrical events as occured in the war between Medina and Mecca, or is this an undisputable aspect of Islamic revelation that's hidden away somewhere? The doctorine of Jihad in Shariah as we know it was coined around the same time the Islamic state moved from one centered on Arabia to one with Imperalists ambitions abroad. Prior to this, Jihad was discussed in the context of the war against the Arabian pagans, and later Byzantium and Persia. All had conflicts with the early Muslims, and so it is hard to abstract theological teachings of Islam with interpretations of Islam that support an Imperalist agenda.
In short, more evidence and less spin please. Some of us actually want an informative article.
Islam is a very tricky religion to study, as it is so intertwined with the history of Muhammad and his followers. However, literalists refuse to reocgnize this, and polemicists don't want to recognize this fact as it interferes with their spin.
Absolutely, how would a chrsitians feel if i were to quote an exalted cyclops of the KKK ? (
Truth 06
15:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC))
the tone of this article is weird. i cant put my finger on it, but it needs to be changed. Someone who has time do it. ( Truth 06 15:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC))
the article is pretty good according to me and should not mean any offense to anyone as it is only for knowdledge purpose —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.193.120.17 ( talk) 05:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with merging this article with Jihad. Because that article is long and also we should expand this article too.
The Combative jihad or Defensive Jihad is completely another article. I think we shouldn't merge this article with another articles-- Sa.vakilian 18:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I've attempted to add sources, cleanup the article and remove any POV. -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 15:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)