![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I tagged the section "Commencing hostilities" with balance because is very POV pushing and one sided.-- Sefringle 22:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
This is all POV. It presents the pro-Islam bias, but not the anti-Islam bias See WP:NPOV#Bias. The balance tag is there for that reason. -- Sefringle 18:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Please append appropriate supporting legal judgments when you reference legal opinions in this article. This is an article about JURISPRUDENCE, not about non-Muslim interpretations of the Qur'an. BYT 17:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[1] BYT 18:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I think a more appropriate way to ask the question would be "Can the Koran be cited/quoted?" I think BYT is arguing that quoting/citing/describing the Koran without an accompanying "judicial source" is improper. NN 18:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
If you respect the Koran, why are you working so hard to hide what it says or doesn't say about a slave woman's consent to sex? NN 19:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
But here's the problem -- you're not talking about what the Koran says, but what it doesn't say -- and (as I have just turned up in research) you are fast-forwarding what it actually does say about this topic.
That's referencing Qur'an 24;33, by the way. Can you clarify for me, given the above citation, how you believe the passage under dispute in the article should read? (As in , what sequence of words would you recommend putting in the article?) This is, I think, a clearly focused and relevant question for you, NN. Perhaps if it can be addressed directly mediation won't be necessary. BYT 13:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
The qur'an alone is not a valid primary source for wikipedia. The qur'an does not say anything on its own. People interprit it. It is full of contradictions, and can easily be interprited as saying something else. For purposes on wikipedia, provide a secondary source that agrees with your interpritation. Otherwise it is WP:OR. See here.-- Sefringle 23:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe the disputed text is "descriptive" and "can be verified by a non-expert". To help come to a resolution of this matter I am offering a compromise of changing the text "There is no mention in the Qu'ran for the master to require consent of the female captive for sex" to "The Qu'ran does not address the issue of the master requiring or not requiring a slave woman's consent to sex". If you find this insufficient we should move on to other means of dispute resolution like mediation and arb com. Please also see the discussion between Grenavita and me on the same subject at [2]. NN 05:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Those who said they were open to mediation should accept the opportunity to engage in it to resolve this matter. [3]
Please do not insert text for which there is no consensus. Please do not insert text that does not cite actual jurisprudence. BYT 08:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Arlandson is not a reliable source, searching religious text for reason to attack is does not make you a scholar. Read his work, and follow what he covers. He is more than "bias", James Arlandson bases his opinion on anything he can find to feed his anger and hate. This is obvious when you read the rest of his papers. James shows absolutely no criticism of his own religion, and has no positive view of Islam.
Wikipedia should not be used as a platform for attacking a religion you oppose, there is not related text to offer an alternative view, because it is not a subject, or part of the religion.
James Arlandson writes articles and blogs on several websites such as, answering-islam.org, www.americanthinker.com, www.muslimhope.com,www.islam-watch.org, www.jihadwatch.org, and www.dinocrat.com, all with a similar anti-Islam theme. Many other site like, theamericanmuslim.org, www.quransearch.com, www.muslim-responses.com, offer Rebuttal to the articles written by James Arlandson. James Arlandson does not offer an objective view of Islam as a scholar, he in fact aggressively searches for anything offensive in Islam, while at the same time feverishly defends Christianity, as seen in all his "articles", and noted by his students..
http://www1.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=539179
Mt. San Jacinto College:Philosophy
12/7/06 phil104
"A good teacher if you want an easy class, not so good if you want to learn about religions. I found him a bit to biased, presenting a Christian point of view rather than an objective one. I wouldn't recomend him unless you are looking for an easy filler class."
http://www1.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=867557 Riverside Community College: Humanities 8/25/06 Hum10 "Attend class,complete homework,study a bit = A! This teacher wants ALL his students to Pass & He is extremely Helpful. You won't know everything about Religion after this class, but a better understanding."
http://www1.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=643123 Riverside Community College - Moreno Valley Campus: English 8/15/05 ENG "If you are a good writer but concerned about grammar and the rules, take this teacher. He will teach you how to write a academic paper. He's very very laidback, really funny, not too strict. He's often late to class. Really cool, take him."
http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/10/slavegirls_as_sexual_property.html
"
The Quran in Sura 23:5—6 says:
5 [Most certainly true believers] . . . guard their private parts scrupulously, 6 except with regard to their wives and those who are legally in their possession, for in that case they shall not be blameworthy. (Sayyid Abul A'La Maududi, The Meaning of the Quran, vol. 3, p. 237)
The key words are 'those who are legally in their possession.' Maududi (d. 1979) is a highly respected commentator on the Quran, and he interprets the plain meaning of the clause, saying that sex with slave—girls is lawful. "
The claim of the key words here, is only an attempt to justify Maududi's interpretation and distracts from the huge jump he makes in his claim from "guard their private parts scrupulously" to "sex with slave-girls".
Sura 24:33
"Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until God gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which God has given to you. But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is God, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them),"
http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/08/why_i_write_hardhitting_articl.html
The roots of his studies, expose his bias view. James Arlanson: "Maybe a few readers wonder why I bother to write about Islam. After all, 9/11 is so long ago." ..."Before 9/11, I had not paid much attention to Islam"
Conflict of Interest. James Arlandson:"Why I write hard-hitting articles on Islam"... "Christianity must be defended and explained."..."The New Testament disagrees, so I disagree. That's why I write my articles."
Bias Spin. James Arlandson:"Two Muslim scholar—apologists are inaccurate when they assert"... "In contrast, the widely respected historian and Islamologist W. Montgomery Watt paints a more accurate picture"
James Arlandson:"...ALL of Islam must be exposed to the world, and so must biased and tendentious Muslim scholarship that shaves off the unpleasant aspects of this religion with the possible goal of converting unsuspecting seekers."
James Arlandson is very quick to attack Islam while he ignores and "shaves off the unpleasant aspects" in his own religion.
Leviticus 25:44-46 "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."
Exodus 21:7-8 "And in case a man should sell his daughter as a slave girl, she will not go out in the way that the slave men go out. If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master so that he doesn't designate her as a concubine but causes her to be redeemed, he will not be entitled to sell her to a foreign people in his treacherously dealing with her."
Deuteronomy 20:13 "And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoils thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself;..."
Dr. Ingrid Mattson (isnapresident@isna.net) is an actual scholar of Islam, maybe you can get her opinion.
Get a clue people, you need to research these topic that you're discussing. James Harold.
Just make sure the text you insert describes why his opinion should be regarded as notable here. Let's work from there. (He's certainly not the only voice on this issue, but at least he's talking about jurisprudence. Kind of.)
You're right, it's not a blog. He is a published author. BYT 11:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
PhD in womens rights in early christianity who has then studied islam and womens rights in that subject. And the links you provided don't say "other experienced editors don't seem to think so". Hypnosadist 09:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
General hint, This article is rather unclear in when consensus in the muslim country exists , and eg. influences the signing of treaty's. Otoh it makes rather individual or even subjective assumptions over the purposed tactical consequences in islamic fighters, as such i wonder if it will be very helpfull in understanding what would fundamentally influence islam ethics in war. There is good points to, eg. that it is made obvious that jihad primarily is a word that occurs in the mind for a defencive arangment. (this is a joke , someone wants to get islamic fighters killed (or cartooned) covers much of the critics. I would be surprised if islam doesn't have similarly ruthless modern filosofy as our seek and destroy.) 77.248.56.242 03:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
"in the way of Allah of the Muslim community ( Ummah) against oppression from the Meccan Quraish as well as in the subsequent wars of expansion. General armed conflicts and feuds are not covered by the term." Is it a quote or something? -- AW 23:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
For anyone intrested, please comment on the peer review: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Islamic military jurisprudence -- Sefringle Talk 03:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The quran verses should not be in the references section. They shuold be presented as part of the article content, without being censored as footnotes.-- Sefringle Talk 00:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Should Qur'an quotes be listed in the references section or in perenthesis as part of the article content? See above section. Sefringle Talk 22:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
The basic principle in fighting in the Quran is that other communities should be treated as one's own. Fighting is justified for legitimate self-defense, to aid other Muslims and after a violation in the terms of a treaty, but should be stopped if these circumstances cease to exist. [1]
The basic principle in fighting in the Quran is that other communities should be treated as one's own. ( Quran 42:41, Quran 22:60, 42:39–42, Quran 2:190, Quran 2:194, Quran 9:36) Fighting is justified for legitimate self-defense, to aid other Muslims ( Quran 4:75) and after a violation in the terms of a treaty, ( 9:13–14) but should be stopped ( Quran 2:193, Quran 4:90, Quran 8:39, Quran 9:3) if these circumstances cease to exist.
The basic principle in fighting in the Quran is that other communities should be treated as one's own.[ Quran 42:41[ 22:60[ 42:39–42[ 2:190[ 2:194[ 9:36 Fighting is justified for legitimate self-defense, to aid other Muslims and after a violation in the terms of a treaty,[ Quran 4:75[ 9:13–14 but should be stopped if these circumstances cease to exist.[ Quran 2:193[ 4:90[ 8:39[ 9:3
User:Bless sins, please do not consider this a majority-rule decision. There is a clear precedent and standard way to cite holy texts. Doing otherwise is inappropriate. There is clearly an issue of clutter in the one section, but that is due to the analytical claims that are being made as synthesizing existing material. This is inappropriate, as it is clearly original research. Please respect the fact that holy texts have a standard citation format. If there is clutter, due to OR, then I suggest cleaning up the OR. I will do so when I can find the time, however, I am not knowledgeable about this subject (I'm here from the RfC) and would prefer a primary editor of this article would clean up the OR instead of botching the standard holy text citation format. -- Cheeser1 19:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I tagged the section "Commencing hostilities" with balance because is very POV pushing and one sided.-- Sefringle 22:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
This is all POV. It presents the pro-Islam bias, but not the anti-Islam bias See WP:NPOV#Bias. The balance tag is there for that reason. -- Sefringle 18:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Please append appropriate supporting legal judgments when you reference legal opinions in this article. This is an article about JURISPRUDENCE, not about non-Muslim interpretations of the Qur'an. BYT 17:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[1] BYT 18:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I think a more appropriate way to ask the question would be "Can the Koran be cited/quoted?" I think BYT is arguing that quoting/citing/describing the Koran without an accompanying "judicial source" is improper. NN 18:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
If you respect the Koran, why are you working so hard to hide what it says or doesn't say about a slave woman's consent to sex? NN 19:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
But here's the problem -- you're not talking about what the Koran says, but what it doesn't say -- and (as I have just turned up in research) you are fast-forwarding what it actually does say about this topic.
That's referencing Qur'an 24;33, by the way. Can you clarify for me, given the above citation, how you believe the passage under dispute in the article should read? (As in , what sequence of words would you recommend putting in the article?) This is, I think, a clearly focused and relevant question for you, NN. Perhaps if it can be addressed directly mediation won't be necessary. BYT 13:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
The qur'an alone is not a valid primary source for wikipedia. The qur'an does not say anything on its own. People interprit it. It is full of contradictions, and can easily be interprited as saying something else. For purposes on wikipedia, provide a secondary source that agrees with your interpritation. Otherwise it is WP:OR. See here.-- Sefringle 23:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe the disputed text is "descriptive" and "can be verified by a non-expert". To help come to a resolution of this matter I am offering a compromise of changing the text "There is no mention in the Qu'ran for the master to require consent of the female captive for sex" to "The Qu'ran does not address the issue of the master requiring or not requiring a slave woman's consent to sex". If you find this insufficient we should move on to other means of dispute resolution like mediation and arb com. Please also see the discussion between Grenavita and me on the same subject at [2]. NN 05:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Those who said they were open to mediation should accept the opportunity to engage in it to resolve this matter. [3]
Please do not insert text for which there is no consensus. Please do not insert text that does not cite actual jurisprudence. BYT 08:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Arlandson is not a reliable source, searching religious text for reason to attack is does not make you a scholar. Read his work, and follow what he covers. He is more than "bias", James Arlandson bases his opinion on anything he can find to feed his anger and hate. This is obvious when you read the rest of his papers. James shows absolutely no criticism of his own religion, and has no positive view of Islam.
Wikipedia should not be used as a platform for attacking a religion you oppose, there is not related text to offer an alternative view, because it is not a subject, or part of the religion.
James Arlandson writes articles and blogs on several websites such as, answering-islam.org, www.americanthinker.com, www.muslimhope.com,www.islam-watch.org, www.jihadwatch.org, and www.dinocrat.com, all with a similar anti-Islam theme. Many other site like, theamericanmuslim.org, www.quransearch.com, www.muslim-responses.com, offer Rebuttal to the articles written by James Arlandson. James Arlandson does not offer an objective view of Islam as a scholar, he in fact aggressively searches for anything offensive in Islam, while at the same time feverishly defends Christianity, as seen in all his "articles", and noted by his students..
http://www1.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=539179
Mt. San Jacinto College:Philosophy
12/7/06 phil104
"A good teacher if you want an easy class, not so good if you want to learn about religions. I found him a bit to biased, presenting a Christian point of view rather than an objective one. I wouldn't recomend him unless you are looking for an easy filler class."
http://www1.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=867557 Riverside Community College: Humanities 8/25/06 Hum10 "Attend class,complete homework,study a bit = A! This teacher wants ALL his students to Pass & He is extremely Helpful. You won't know everything about Religion after this class, but a better understanding."
http://www1.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=643123 Riverside Community College - Moreno Valley Campus: English 8/15/05 ENG "If you are a good writer but concerned about grammar and the rules, take this teacher. He will teach you how to write a academic paper. He's very very laidback, really funny, not too strict. He's often late to class. Really cool, take him."
http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/10/slavegirls_as_sexual_property.html
"
The Quran in Sura 23:5—6 says:
5 [Most certainly true believers] . . . guard their private parts scrupulously, 6 except with regard to their wives and those who are legally in their possession, for in that case they shall not be blameworthy. (Sayyid Abul A'La Maududi, The Meaning of the Quran, vol. 3, p. 237)
The key words are 'those who are legally in their possession.' Maududi (d. 1979) is a highly respected commentator on the Quran, and he interprets the plain meaning of the clause, saying that sex with slave—girls is lawful. "
The claim of the key words here, is only an attempt to justify Maududi's interpretation and distracts from the huge jump he makes in his claim from "guard their private parts scrupulously" to "sex with slave-girls".
Sura 24:33
"Let those who find not the wherewithal for marriage keep themselves chaste, until God gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which God has given to you. But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is God, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them),"
http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/08/why_i_write_hardhitting_articl.html
The roots of his studies, expose his bias view. James Arlanson: "Maybe a few readers wonder why I bother to write about Islam. After all, 9/11 is so long ago." ..."Before 9/11, I had not paid much attention to Islam"
Conflict of Interest. James Arlandson:"Why I write hard-hitting articles on Islam"... "Christianity must be defended and explained."..."The New Testament disagrees, so I disagree. That's why I write my articles."
Bias Spin. James Arlandson:"Two Muslim scholar—apologists are inaccurate when they assert"... "In contrast, the widely respected historian and Islamologist W. Montgomery Watt paints a more accurate picture"
James Arlandson:"...ALL of Islam must be exposed to the world, and so must biased and tendentious Muslim scholarship that shaves off the unpleasant aspects of this religion with the possible goal of converting unsuspecting seekers."
James Arlandson is very quick to attack Islam while he ignores and "shaves off the unpleasant aspects" in his own religion.
Leviticus 25:44-46 "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."
Exodus 21:7-8 "And in case a man should sell his daughter as a slave girl, she will not go out in the way that the slave men go out. If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master so that he doesn't designate her as a concubine but causes her to be redeemed, he will not be entitled to sell her to a foreign people in his treacherously dealing with her."
Deuteronomy 20:13 "And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoils thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself;..."
Dr. Ingrid Mattson (isnapresident@isna.net) is an actual scholar of Islam, maybe you can get her opinion.
Get a clue people, you need to research these topic that you're discussing. James Harold.
Just make sure the text you insert describes why his opinion should be regarded as notable here. Let's work from there. (He's certainly not the only voice on this issue, but at least he's talking about jurisprudence. Kind of.)
You're right, it's not a blog. He is a published author. BYT 11:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
PhD in womens rights in early christianity who has then studied islam and womens rights in that subject. And the links you provided don't say "other experienced editors don't seem to think so". Hypnosadist 09:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
General hint, This article is rather unclear in when consensus in the muslim country exists , and eg. influences the signing of treaty's. Otoh it makes rather individual or even subjective assumptions over the purposed tactical consequences in islamic fighters, as such i wonder if it will be very helpfull in understanding what would fundamentally influence islam ethics in war. There is good points to, eg. that it is made obvious that jihad primarily is a word that occurs in the mind for a defencive arangment. (this is a joke , someone wants to get islamic fighters killed (or cartooned) covers much of the critics. I would be surprised if islam doesn't have similarly ruthless modern filosofy as our seek and destroy.) 77.248.56.242 03:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
"in the way of Allah of the Muslim community ( Ummah) against oppression from the Meccan Quraish as well as in the subsequent wars of expansion. General armed conflicts and feuds are not covered by the term." Is it a quote or something? -- AW 23:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
For anyone intrested, please comment on the peer review: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Islamic military jurisprudence -- Sefringle Talk 03:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The quran verses should not be in the references section. They shuold be presented as part of the article content, without being censored as footnotes.-- Sefringle Talk 00:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Should Qur'an quotes be listed in the references section or in perenthesis as part of the article content? See above section. Sefringle Talk 22:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
The basic principle in fighting in the Quran is that other communities should be treated as one's own. Fighting is justified for legitimate self-defense, to aid other Muslims and after a violation in the terms of a treaty, but should be stopped if these circumstances cease to exist. [1]
The basic principle in fighting in the Quran is that other communities should be treated as one's own. ( Quran 42:41, Quran 22:60, 42:39–42, Quran 2:190, Quran 2:194, Quran 9:36) Fighting is justified for legitimate self-defense, to aid other Muslims ( Quran 4:75) and after a violation in the terms of a treaty, ( 9:13–14) but should be stopped ( Quran 2:193, Quran 4:90, Quran 8:39, Quran 9:3) if these circumstances cease to exist.
The basic principle in fighting in the Quran is that other communities should be treated as one's own.[ Quran 42:41[ 22:60[ 42:39–42[ 2:190[ 2:194[ 9:36 Fighting is justified for legitimate self-defense, to aid other Muslims and after a violation in the terms of a treaty,[ Quran 4:75[ 9:13–14 but should be stopped if these circumstances cease to exist.[ Quran 2:193[ 4:90[ 8:39[ 9:3
User:Bless sins, please do not consider this a majority-rule decision. There is a clear precedent and standard way to cite holy texts. Doing otherwise is inappropriate. There is clearly an issue of clutter in the one section, but that is due to the analytical claims that are being made as synthesizing existing material. This is inappropriate, as it is clearly original research. Please respect the fact that holy texts have a standard citation format. If there is clutter, due to OR, then I suggest cleaning up the OR. I will do so when I can find the time, however, I am not knowledgeable about this subject (I'm here from the RfC) and would prefer a primary editor of this article would clean up the OR instead of botching the standard holy text citation format. -- Cheeser1 19:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)