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 |
Al-Qaradhawi is alive and we need to take extra care before we attribute something to him. The BBC link did not claim Qaradhawi said what Matt57 inserted. I would like full quote of what he says below, before we attribute any contentious info (like justifying death of civilians). Bless sins 11:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I have removed this from the article and moved it here:
Yousef al-Qaradhawi, argues that killing (or suicide bombing) is acceptable if the goal is to repel the invaders of muslim lands. Innocent Muslim civilian deaths, he argues, are unfortunate but permitted in war. He says such killings are martyrdom, and thus acceptable, since they sacrifice themselves for the sake of a higher goal, and that is to please Allah. [1] [2]
Al-Qaradhawi's statements, as reported by BBC have been included in the article already (see Islamic_military_jurisprudence#In_combat). MEMRI, the other source, can't be considered reliable (atleast in this case). He has charged MEMRI of misquoting him in the past (see Yusuf_al-Qaradawi#Fatwa_controversy_with_MEMRI). We have to be careful since Al-Qaradhawi is living and WP:BLP applies here. Bless sins 18:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
<reset>So any newspaper that is not tabloid nor runs articles on "bat-boy and the world's fattest baby" is reliable?
How do I know that MEMRI meets "(true) editorial review"? And where in WP:RS does it say that "Publication and (true) editorial review are [enough] standards for WP:RS"? Bless sins 18:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Cheeser1, can you explain exactly how the section violates WP:OR. The above RfC was to comment on the inclusion of ref format, not claims of OR. Therefore, I'd like it you explained in this section why you think there is original research. Bless sins 19:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
The basic principle in fighting in the Quran is that other communities should be treated as one's own.[3] Fighting is justified for legitimate self-defense, to aid other Muslims[4] and after a violation in the terms of a treaty, [5] but should be stopped[6] if these circumstances cease to exist.[7][8][9][10]
(Greetings, are you still discussin how to deal w/Quran references or has that been settled? I see strong stylistic advantages and no policy problem (censorship or otherwise) with putting most scriptural citations in footnotes. Indeed, the Jesus article cited above, as exemplifying in-line references, also has plenty in the notes. I'm glad you all agree on the need for secondary sources. But I do wonder if there may be an over-emphasis on the Quran rather than subsequent sources of Islamic law. In good articles on Jewish law, there tend to be relatively few quotes from Bible or Mishnah passages and much more from later rabbinic literature. Hope you don't mind the interruption. HG | Talk 07:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC))
<reset>I put this to discussion here and everyone else besides you thinks we should mention the verse. Considering that no one has commented there for some time, I'll assume it is the consensus. Bless sins 00:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
<reset>HG and Cheeser1. I'll be very honest with you here, with what I want. I want a universal solution. If we must absolutely delete Quran verses wheresoever we find them, then we should go that with all articles. If we are to decide, on a case by case basis, whether Quran verses belongs then we should apply this rule to all articles, and define our criteria. I just don't like it when we don't have a standard policy (and just to be clear, neither of you are to be blamed for this). Bless sins 05:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Greetings. You might find this useful:
the Islamic Ethics of War and Peace by Sohail H. Hashmi (google's cache)
"The Doctrine of Jihad: An Introduction" by Noor Mohammad in Journal of Law and ReligionVol. 3, No. 2 (1985), pp. 381-397. ( JSTOR link)
Just War and Jihad: Historical and Theoretical Perspectives on War and Peace in Western and Islamic Traditions, eds. Kelsay, John and Johnson, James Turner. 1991
Thanks. Take care, HG | Talk 15:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
It would be helpful if this article had more history related material. Bless sins ( talk) 05:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I am objecting to the GA nomination for three reasons:
Yahel Guhan 08:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) All of this seems irrelevant debate to the contents of this article. If there are specific passages that anyone objects to as biased, please bring them up. But so far the debate here doesn't have anything to do with how this article can be improved, or how the article fails to meet the GA criteria. Van Tucky 06:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I put on hold tag on the article. I think there are some problems in this article.
-- Seyyed( t- c) 10:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I propose this structure which I think more compatible with classic jurisprudential texts. You can ask Ittaqallah too.
# 1 jurisprudential sources # 2 Legitimacy of war # 3 Ethics of warfare # 4 Codes of offensive Jihad # 5 Codes of defensive Jihad
International conflict(It should be splited into two sections):
# 6 Jihad against non-Muslims # 7 Jihad against Muslims
I think we can put most of the other issues under these sections. If some issues such as Civilian areas and Baqy remained, then we make a separate section for it.-- Seyyed( t- c) 04:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
There are some problems with your categorization. For example, "defensive jihad" can be against either non-Muslims or Muslims. "Offensive jihad" can be against non-Muslims. Furthermore, I have classified the article into domestic (i.e. between Muslims) and international between different abodes (e.g. dar al-islam vs. dar al-harb). Bless sins ( talk) 05:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I usually stay for on hold articles at least two weeks, but this article has so many problems that I don't think you can solve them even in a month. I propose using technical jurisprudential sources of Shia and Sunni Fiqh to improve it. Not only should you rearrange the article but also you should rewrite some part of it.
Due to necessary rearrangement I prefer not to check GA criteria.-- Seyyed( t- c) 04:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Notes:
Yahel Guhan accused me of putting into the article "made up sources". [10]
Which sources I have "made up"? Bless sins ( talk) 16:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
My version reads:
Abdulaziz Sachedina believes differntly. He states that the Qur'an requires Muslims to establish overall public order. This can be established though offensive measures. Thus offensive jihad raises questions about whether jihad is justifiable on moral grounds. Quranic verses, like Qur'an 8:39 revealed in the latter part of Muhammad's career require Muslims to wage Jihad against unbelievers. Wars of expansion in the Islamic empire, he argues were considered jihad by Sunni scholars, but under close scrutny can be determined to be political.
Your version reads:
Abdulaziz Sachedina argues that the original jihad was permission to fight back against those who broke their pledges. Thus the Qur'an justified defensive jihad by allowing Muslims to fight back against hostile and dangerous forces. The Qur'an also requires Muslims to establish just public order, increasing the influence of Islam, allowing public Islamic worship. Although this can be said to be "offensive" jihad it has been complicated by early wars of expansion. Although viewed by Sunni scholars as jihad, under closer scrutiny the hostilities were political in nature. Moreover, the offensive jihad points more to the complex relationship with the "People of the book" than their conversion
For one, the source [11]: never says anything like "original jihad was permission to fight back against those who broke their pledges.Thus the Qur'an justified defensive jihad by allowing Muslims to fight back against hostile and dangerous forces." Secondly, it doesn't say "Although this can be said to be "offensive" jihad it has been complicated by early wars of expansion." This statement is taken way out of context. Rather, the source says the following:
It is not difficult to adduce a strictly moral justification for the permission given to retaliate with force against attacks upon them. The qur'an, thus, justifies defensive jihad by allowing muslims to fight against and subdue hostile unbelievers as dangerous and faithless, because they are inimical to the success of God's cause. Furthermore, the Qur'an requires Muslims to strive to establish just public order overall. At this point jihad becomes an offensive endeavor to bring about the world order the qur'an seeks.
Offensive jihad raises question about the justification of jihad on moral grounds only, because the quran passages revealed in the later part of the Profit's career in Medina require muslims to wage jihad against unbelievers "until there is no dissension and the religion is entirely gods" (8:39). The question of offensive jihad is not a simple one. It is complicated by wars of expansion that were undertaken by Muslim armies up to the end of the Umayyad period. (eighth century A.D.). These wars are regarded as jihad by Sunni Muslim scholars. However upon careful scrutiny, these wars appear to be political, with the aim of expansion of Islamic hegemony without the qur'anic goal of "religion being entirely God's." Moreover, offensive jihad against "those who do not believe in God and the Last Day and do not forbid what God and His messenger have forbidden and do not practice the religion of truth, from among those who have been given the Book until they pay jizya [poll-tax]" (9:29) points more to the complex relationship and interdependence of religous-moral considerations in the policy of Islamic public order vis-a-vis the "people of the Book" than to their conversion to "God's religon," Islam.
-- Yahel Guhan 03:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
original jihad was permission to fight back against those who broke their pledges.
The ordainment of jihad, according to Muslim exegetes, occurred the first time in Medina, when Muslims were given permission to fight back against the "folk who broke their solemn pledges".
Thus the Qur'an justified defensive jihad by allowing Muslims to fight back against hostile and dangerous forces.
The Qur'an, thus, justifies defensive jihad by allowing Muslims to fight against and subdue hostile unbelievers.
Although this can be said to be "offensive" jihad it has been complicated by early wars of expansion.
The question of offensive jihad is not a simple one. It was complicated by the wars of expansion that were undertaken by Muslim armies upto the end of the Umayyad period.
First of all, "The ordainment of jihad, according to Muslim exegetes, occurred the first time in Medina, when Muslims were given permission to fight back against the "folk who broke their solemn pledges" does not appear in the text.
Second, the source say s "unbelievers" not "forces," showing a clear attempt to lighten the language and thus provide a lightened version of his belief.
Third, "Although this can be said to be "offensive" jihad" and "it has been complicated by early wars of expansion" are two seperate ideas. The source doesn't put them together for one, and for two, the source doe not say "Thus the Qur'an justified defensive jihad by allowing Muslims to fight back against hostile and dangerous forces. Although this can be said to be "offensive" jihad" as it would read in your version. When you seperate the ideas and thus take him out of context, it appears you are right, and everything is sourced properly, but when you observe context,it is a made up interpritation.
Now for my version. (you can notice the sources are in the order presented by the author, unlike your version):
Me:"He states that the Qur'an requires Muslims to establish overall public order. This can be established though offensive measures. "
Source: "Furthermore, the Qur'an requires Muslims to strive to establish just public order overall. At this point jihad becomes an offensive endeavor to bring about the world order the qur'an seeks."
Me: "Thus offensive jihad raises questions about whether jihad is justifiable on moral grounds"
Source: "Offensive jihad raises question about the justification of jihad on moral grounds only"
Me: "Quranic verses, like Qur'an 8:39 revealed in the latter part of Muhammad's career require Muslims to wage Jihad against unbelievers"
Source: "because the quran passages revealed in the later part of the Profit's career in Medina require muslims to wage jihad against unbelievers "until there is no dissension and the religion is entirely gods" (8:39). "
Me: "Wars of expansion in the Islamic empire, he argues were considered jihad by Sunni scholars, but under close scrutny can be determined to be political."
Source: "The question of offensive jihad is not a simple one. It is complicated by wars of expansion that were undertaken by Muslim armies up to the end of the Umayyad period. (eighth century A.D.). These wars are regarded as jihad by Sunni Muslim scholars. However upon careful scrutiny, these wars appear to be political, with the aim of expansion of Islamic hegemony without the qur'anic goal of "religion being entirely God's." "
As you can see, my version is completely within context, and not made up, while your version takes Abdulaziz Sachedina out of context and makes up interpritations. Yahel Guhan 04:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The Qur'an also requires Muslims to establish just public order, increasing the influence of Islam, allowing public Islamic worship.
the Qur'an requires Muslims to establish overall public order
Although this can be said to be "offensive" jihad
This can be established though [sic] offensive measures
OK, this isn't going to work. It is not "said to be jihad "as an offensive endeavor" Sachedina states "The Qur'an requires Muslims to strive to establish just public order overall. At this point jihad becomes an offensive endeavor to bring about the world order the qur'an seeks. Offensive jihad raises question about the justification of jihad on moral grounds only, because the quran passages revealed in the later part of the Profit's career in Medina require muslims to wage jihad against unbelievers "until there is no dissension and the religion is entirely gods"." This is not the same as "Qur'an also requires Muslims to establish just public order, increasing the influence of Islam, allowing public Islamic worship. Although this can be said to be jihad "as an offensive endeavor" it has been complicated by early wars of expansion". This takes three different ideas and merges them into two unrelated sentences. "Allowing public Islamic worship" is never mentioned. Getting back to the statement, what he is saying is the quran requires muslims to wage jihad in order to establish a just public order overall through an offensive endeavor. Offensive Jihad must be waged against unbelievers until they convert to islam, and therefore it brings question to the morality of jihad. "it has been complicated by early wars of expansion" is a completely different topic point. Yahel Guhan 06:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The article on Islamic military jurisprudence, presents matters related to war and the military from the perspective of Islamic law. Certainly, many people have perspectives on war (and non-martial violence), and Taheri-azar is one of them. Yet he is not a reliable source on Islamic law. Therefore his opinions belong on an article devoted to him, and not this one which aims to discuss the opinions of prominent Islamic jurists and relevant scholars (whether Muslim or non-Muslim, doesn't matter). Bless sins ( talk) 00:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Bless sins, you wrote "Islam does not permit Muslims to reject peace and continue bloodshed [11]"
First of all, this is anything but a neutral statement. Second, please provide the full quote. Third, obviously POV statements like this need attribution. Yahel Guhan 05:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Therefore, you should boldly face the enemy both in war and peace. When the enemy desires to have talks with you, you should be willing and ready to negotiate with the other party wihtout any hesitation. Do not reject the offer on the plea that the other party is not sincere and has treacherous intentions, for no one can have knowledge of the correct intentions of others. If the other party is sincere in its offer, it will be wrong to reject it [peace offer] and continue bloodshed. And if the enemy has treacherous intentions, then Allah will protect you from them because of your courage and moral superiority.
I haven't take a look at the article recently but at the time of its nomination for GA, I believe, it had a pro-contemporary-Muslim bias(bullet 3 below). Islamic view of Jihad underwent developments over time. I think three periods should be distinguished and classified:
1. The Qur'anic view of warfare and peace is different from those developed by later jurists (e.g. see EoQ, War and warfare article, and Peace article [13]; you can see ). I believe the Qur'an's view should be mentioned but together with other ones.
2. Influenced with their military power, later Sunni jurists created a doctrine of Jihad whose goal is to create world-wide Islamic empire, something that seemed to be possible to achieve at that time. For Shias, the absence of a divinely appointed leader closed the door of such forms of Jihad, so like mystic Muslims they stressed on the other spiritual types of jihad.
3. In modern times, a new interpretation of Jihad was proposed in which warfare can be only defensive (driven by the same forces that once created the traditional doctrine of Jihad). This view is adopted by most Muslims but not all of them. The sentence "After Muhammad and his companions, there is no concept in Islam obliging Muslims to wage war for propagation or implementation of Islam" in the article is coming from this POV.
I think the article is a tough one and requires much work before becoming GA. -- Be happy!! ( talk) 22:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, this article is heavily biased, since it is entirely written from a pro-Islamic perspective; it does not analyze, in particular, where Islamic rules do in fact conflict with international law.
However, to re-write it would be a huge, ungrateful task: it's probably better to leave it as it is, since its bias is so blatant that it does not allow for any sort of ambiguity.(Giordaano) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giordaano ( talk • contribs) 10:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm a new reader of this article, and I'm with Bless sins on this one. This article is about Islamic military jurisprudence; it is not about what Muslims do in the modern world or have done in history, or even necessarily about what the average Muslim believes the laws of wars are. We're talking about legal scholarship and commandments from a religious text, not about behavior or anything else. For instance, you could talk about Jewish dietary laws in isolation from what Jews may or may not now eat or have eaten in times past. -- GenkiNeko ( talk) 10:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
While discussing the military draft, two of my Muslim friends here in the United States mentioned that Islam prohibits them from fighting in Kaffir (non-Muslim) armies. I was hoping this article would shed some light on this but unfortunately it did not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.174.241 ( talk) 11:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I can understand the lack of images in the article. Quality images are needed.
However, irrelevent and politically charged images should not be used. An Afghan soldier displaying spoils of war, may have more to do with "spoils of war" etc and less with Islamic military jurisprudence. For example, can you show which reliable sources call the Afghan soldier's actions as conforming with and encouraged by Islamic law of war? Bless sins ( talk) 00:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
The first part of the review (Lead and the first 3 sections):
I will continue my review of the article tomorrow. Ruslik ( talk) 17:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The second part ('Legitimacy of war' and the beginning of 'International conflict' sections):
This was the second part of my review. I will continue tomorrow. Ruslik ( talk) 14:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The last part of my review:
The sources generally look good. I will wait another couple of days. If the author does not respond I will fail the article. Ruslik ( talk) 08:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC) Since there is no response from the author I will fail the article. Ruslik ( talk) 09:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Can we include some quran verses that refer to the sermon, and the ethics of warfare in islam? Faro0485 ( talk) 20:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
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 |
Al-Qaradhawi is alive and we need to take extra care before we attribute something to him. The BBC link did not claim Qaradhawi said what Matt57 inserted. I would like full quote of what he says below, before we attribute any contentious info (like justifying death of civilians). Bless sins 11:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I have removed this from the article and moved it here:
Yousef al-Qaradhawi, argues that killing (or suicide bombing) is acceptable if the goal is to repel the invaders of muslim lands. Innocent Muslim civilian deaths, he argues, are unfortunate but permitted in war. He says such killings are martyrdom, and thus acceptable, since they sacrifice themselves for the sake of a higher goal, and that is to please Allah. [1] [2]
Al-Qaradhawi's statements, as reported by BBC have been included in the article already (see Islamic_military_jurisprudence#In_combat). MEMRI, the other source, can't be considered reliable (atleast in this case). He has charged MEMRI of misquoting him in the past (see Yusuf_al-Qaradawi#Fatwa_controversy_with_MEMRI). We have to be careful since Al-Qaradhawi is living and WP:BLP applies here. Bless sins 18:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
<reset>So any newspaper that is not tabloid nor runs articles on "bat-boy and the world's fattest baby" is reliable?
How do I know that MEMRI meets "(true) editorial review"? And where in WP:RS does it say that "Publication and (true) editorial review are [enough] standards for WP:RS"? Bless sins 18:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Cheeser1, can you explain exactly how the section violates WP:OR. The above RfC was to comment on the inclusion of ref format, not claims of OR. Therefore, I'd like it you explained in this section why you think there is original research. Bless sins 19:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
The basic principle in fighting in the Quran is that other communities should be treated as one's own.[3] Fighting is justified for legitimate self-defense, to aid other Muslims[4] and after a violation in the terms of a treaty, [5] but should be stopped[6] if these circumstances cease to exist.[7][8][9][10]
(Greetings, are you still discussin how to deal w/Quran references or has that been settled? I see strong stylistic advantages and no policy problem (censorship or otherwise) with putting most scriptural citations in footnotes. Indeed, the Jesus article cited above, as exemplifying in-line references, also has plenty in the notes. I'm glad you all agree on the need for secondary sources. But I do wonder if there may be an over-emphasis on the Quran rather than subsequent sources of Islamic law. In good articles on Jewish law, there tend to be relatively few quotes from Bible or Mishnah passages and much more from later rabbinic literature. Hope you don't mind the interruption. HG | Talk 07:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC))
<reset>I put this to discussion here and everyone else besides you thinks we should mention the verse. Considering that no one has commented there for some time, I'll assume it is the consensus. Bless sins 00:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
<reset>HG and Cheeser1. I'll be very honest with you here, with what I want. I want a universal solution. If we must absolutely delete Quran verses wheresoever we find them, then we should go that with all articles. If we are to decide, on a case by case basis, whether Quran verses belongs then we should apply this rule to all articles, and define our criteria. I just don't like it when we don't have a standard policy (and just to be clear, neither of you are to be blamed for this). Bless sins 05:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Greetings. You might find this useful:
the Islamic Ethics of War and Peace by Sohail H. Hashmi (google's cache)
"The Doctrine of Jihad: An Introduction" by Noor Mohammad in Journal of Law and ReligionVol. 3, No. 2 (1985), pp. 381-397. ( JSTOR link)
Just War and Jihad: Historical and Theoretical Perspectives on War and Peace in Western and Islamic Traditions, eds. Kelsay, John and Johnson, James Turner. 1991
Thanks. Take care, HG | Talk 15:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
It would be helpful if this article had more history related material. Bless sins ( talk) 05:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I am objecting to the GA nomination for three reasons:
Yahel Guhan 08:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) All of this seems irrelevant debate to the contents of this article. If there are specific passages that anyone objects to as biased, please bring them up. But so far the debate here doesn't have anything to do with how this article can be improved, or how the article fails to meet the GA criteria. Van Tucky 06:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I put on hold tag on the article. I think there are some problems in this article.
-- Seyyed( t- c) 10:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I propose this structure which I think more compatible with classic jurisprudential texts. You can ask Ittaqallah too.
# 1 jurisprudential sources # 2 Legitimacy of war # 3 Ethics of warfare # 4 Codes of offensive Jihad # 5 Codes of defensive Jihad
International conflict(It should be splited into two sections):
# 6 Jihad against non-Muslims # 7 Jihad against Muslims
I think we can put most of the other issues under these sections. If some issues such as Civilian areas and Baqy remained, then we make a separate section for it.-- Seyyed( t- c) 04:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
There are some problems with your categorization. For example, "defensive jihad" can be against either non-Muslims or Muslims. "Offensive jihad" can be against non-Muslims. Furthermore, I have classified the article into domestic (i.e. between Muslims) and international between different abodes (e.g. dar al-islam vs. dar al-harb). Bless sins ( talk) 05:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I usually stay for on hold articles at least two weeks, but this article has so many problems that I don't think you can solve them even in a month. I propose using technical jurisprudential sources of Shia and Sunni Fiqh to improve it. Not only should you rearrange the article but also you should rewrite some part of it.
Due to necessary rearrangement I prefer not to check GA criteria.-- Seyyed( t- c) 04:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Notes:
Yahel Guhan accused me of putting into the article "made up sources". [10]
Which sources I have "made up"? Bless sins ( talk) 16:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
My version reads:
Abdulaziz Sachedina believes differntly. He states that the Qur'an requires Muslims to establish overall public order. This can be established though offensive measures. Thus offensive jihad raises questions about whether jihad is justifiable on moral grounds. Quranic verses, like Qur'an 8:39 revealed in the latter part of Muhammad's career require Muslims to wage Jihad against unbelievers. Wars of expansion in the Islamic empire, he argues were considered jihad by Sunni scholars, but under close scrutny can be determined to be political.
Your version reads:
Abdulaziz Sachedina argues that the original jihad was permission to fight back against those who broke their pledges. Thus the Qur'an justified defensive jihad by allowing Muslims to fight back against hostile and dangerous forces. The Qur'an also requires Muslims to establish just public order, increasing the influence of Islam, allowing public Islamic worship. Although this can be said to be "offensive" jihad it has been complicated by early wars of expansion. Although viewed by Sunni scholars as jihad, under closer scrutiny the hostilities were political in nature. Moreover, the offensive jihad points more to the complex relationship with the "People of the book" than their conversion
For one, the source [11]: never says anything like "original jihad was permission to fight back against those who broke their pledges.Thus the Qur'an justified defensive jihad by allowing Muslims to fight back against hostile and dangerous forces." Secondly, it doesn't say "Although this can be said to be "offensive" jihad it has been complicated by early wars of expansion." This statement is taken way out of context. Rather, the source says the following:
It is not difficult to adduce a strictly moral justification for the permission given to retaliate with force against attacks upon them. The qur'an, thus, justifies defensive jihad by allowing muslims to fight against and subdue hostile unbelievers as dangerous and faithless, because they are inimical to the success of God's cause. Furthermore, the Qur'an requires Muslims to strive to establish just public order overall. At this point jihad becomes an offensive endeavor to bring about the world order the qur'an seeks.
Offensive jihad raises question about the justification of jihad on moral grounds only, because the quran passages revealed in the later part of the Profit's career in Medina require muslims to wage jihad against unbelievers "until there is no dissension and the religion is entirely gods" (8:39). The question of offensive jihad is not a simple one. It is complicated by wars of expansion that were undertaken by Muslim armies up to the end of the Umayyad period. (eighth century A.D.). These wars are regarded as jihad by Sunni Muslim scholars. However upon careful scrutiny, these wars appear to be political, with the aim of expansion of Islamic hegemony without the qur'anic goal of "religion being entirely God's." Moreover, offensive jihad against "those who do not believe in God and the Last Day and do not forbid what God and His messenger have forbidden and do not practice the religion of truth, from among those who have been given the Book until they pay jizya [poll-tax]" (9:29) points more to the complex relationship and interdependence of religous-moral considerations in the policy of Islamic public order vis-a-vis the "people of the Book" than to their conversion to "God's religon," Islam.
-- Yahel Guhan 03:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
original jihad was permission to fight back against those who broke their pledges.
The ordainment of jihad, according to Muslim exegetes, occurred the first time in Medina, when Muslims were given permission to fight back against the "folk who broke their solemn pledges".
Thus the Qur'an justified defensive jihad by allowing Muslims to fight back against hostile and dangerous forces.
The Qur'an, thus, justifies defensive jihad by allowing Muslims to fight against and subdue hostile unbelievers.
Although this can be said to be "offensive" jihad it has been complicated by early wars of expansion.
The question of offensive jihad is not a simple one. It was complicated by the wars of expansion that were undertaken by Muslim armies upto the end of the Umayyad period.
First of all, "The ordainment of jihad, according to Muslim exegetes, occurred the first time in Medina, when Muslims were given permission to fight back against the "folk who broke their solemn pledges" does not appear in the text.
Second, the source say s "unbelievers" not "forces," showing a clear attempt to lighten the language and thus provide a lightened version of his belief.
Third, "Although this can be said to be "offensive" jihad" and "it has been complicated by early wars of expansion" are two seperate ideas. The source doesn't put them together for one, and for two, the source doe not say "Thus the Qur'an justified defensive jihad by allowing Muslims to fight back against hostile and dangerous forces. Although this can be said to be "offensive" jihad" as it would read in your version. When you seperate the ideas and thus take him out of context, it appears you are right, and everything is sourced properly, but when you observe context,it is a made up interpritation.
Now for my version. (you can notice the sources are in the order presented by the author, unlike your version):
Me:"He states that the Qur'an requires Muslims to establish overall public order. This can be established though offensive measures. "
Source: "Furthermore, the Qur'an requires Muslims to strive to establish just public order overall. At this point jihad becomes an offensive endeavor to bring about the world order the qur'an seeks."
Me: "Thus offensive jihad raises questions about whether jihad is justifiable on moral grounds"
Source: "Offensive jihad raises question about the justification of jihad on moral grounds only"
Me: "Quranic verses, like Qur'an 8:39 revealed in the latter part of Muhammad's career require Muslims to wage Jihad against unbelievers"
Source: "because the quran passages revealed in the later part of the Profit's career in Medina require muslims to wage jihad against unbelievers "until there is no dissension and the religion is entirely gods" (8:39). "
Me: "Wars of expansion in the Islamic empire, he argues were considered jihad by Sunni scholars, but under close scrutny can be determined to be political."
Source: "The question of offensive jihad is not a simple one. It is complicated by wars of expansion that were undertaken by Muslim armies up to the end of the Umayyad period. (eighth century A.D.). These wars are regarded as jihad by Sunni Muslim scholars. However upon careful scrutiny, these wars appear to be political, with the aim of expansion of Islamic hegemony without the qur'anic goal of "religion being entirely God's." "
As you can see, my version is completely within context, and not made up, while your version takes Abdulaziz Sachedina out of context and makes up interpritations. Yahel Guhan 04:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The Qur'an also requires Muslims to establish just public order, increasing the influence of Islam, allowing public Islamic worship.
the Qur'an requires Muslims to establish overall public order
Although this can be said to be "offensive" jihad
This can be established though [sic] offensive measures
OK, this isn't going to work. It is not "said to be jihad "as an offensive endeavor" Sachedina states "The Qur'an requires Muslims to strive to establish just public order overall. At this point jihad becomes an offensive endeavor to bring about the world order the qur'an seeks. Offensive jihad raises question about the justification of jihad on moral grounds only, because the quran passages revealed in the later part of the Profit's career in Medina require muslims to wage jihad against unbelievers "until there is no dissension and the religion is entirely gods"." This is not the same as "Qur'an also requires Muslims to establish just public order, increasing the influence of Islam, allowing public Islamic worship. Although this can be said to be jihad "as an offensive endeavor" it has been complicated by early wars of expansion". This takes three different ideas and merges them into two unrelated sentences. "Allowing public Islamic worship" is never mentioned. Getting back to the statement, what he is saying is the quran requires muslims to wage jihad in order to establish a just public order overall through an offensive endeavor. Offensive Jihad must be waged against unbelievers until they convert to islam, and therefore it brings question to the morality of jihad. "it has been complicated by early wars of expansion" is a completely different topic point. Yahel Guhan 06:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The article on Islamic military jurisprudence, presents matters related to war and the military from the perspective of Islamic law. Certainly, many people have perspectives on war (and non-martial violence), and Taheri-azar is one of them. Yet he is not a reliable source on Islamic law. Therefore his opinions belong on an article devoted to him, and not this one which aims to discuss the opinions of prominent Islamic jurists and relevant scholars (whether Muslim or non-Muslim, doesn't matter). Bless sins ( talk) 00:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Bless sins, you wrote "Islam does not permit Muslims to reject peace and continue bloodshed [11]"
First of all, this is anything but a neutral statement. Second, please provide the full quote. Third, obviously POV statements like this need attribution. Yahel Guhan 05:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Therefore, you should boldly face the enemy both in war and peace. When the enemy desires to have talks with you, you should be willing and ready to negotiate with the other party wihtout any hesitation. Do not reject the offer on the plea that the other party is not sincere and has treacherous intentions, for no one can have knowledge of the correct intentions of others. If the other party is sincere in its offer, it will be wrong to reject it [peace offer] and continue bloodshed. And if the enemy has treacherous intentions, then Allah will protect you from them because of your courage and moral superiority.
I haven't take a look at the article recently but at the time of its nomination for GA, I believe, it had a pro-contemporary-Muslim bias(bullet 3 below). Islamic view of Jihad underwent developments over time. I think three periods should be distinguished and classified:
1. The Qur'anic view of warfare and peace is different from those developed by later jurists (e.g. see EoQ, War and warfare article, and Peace article [13]; you can see ). I believe the Qur'an's view should be mentioned but together with other ones.
2. Influenced with their military power, later Sunni jurists created a doctrine of Jihad whose goal is to create world-wide Islamic empire, something that seemed to be possible to achieve at that time. For Shias, the absence of a divinely appointed leader closed the door of such forms of Jihad, so like mystic Muslims they stressed on the other spiritual types of jihad.
3. In modern times, a new interpretation of Jihad was proposed in which warfare can be only defensive (driven by the same forces that once created the traditional doctrine of Jihad). This view is adopted by most Muslims but not all of them. The sentence "After Muhammad and his companions, there is no concept in Islam obliging Muslims to wage war for propagation or implementation of Islam" in the article is coming from this POV.
I think the article is a tough one and requires much work before becoming GA. -- Be happy!! ( talk) 22:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, this article is heavily biased, since it is entirely written from a pro-Islamic perspective; it does not analyze, in particular, where Islamic rules do in fact conflict with international law.
However, to re-write it would be a huge, ungrateful task: it's probably better to leave it as it is, since its bias is so blatant that it does not allow for any sort of ambiguity.(Giordaano) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giordaano ( talk • contribs) 10:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm a new reader of this article, and I'm with Bless sins on this one. This article is about Islamic military jurisprudence; it is not about what Muslims do in the modern world or have done in history, or even necessarily about what the average Muslim believes the laws of wars are. We're talking about legal scholarship and commandments from a religious text, not about behavior or anything else. For instance, you could talk about Jewish dietary laws in isolation from what Jews may or may not now eat or have eaten in times past. -- GenkiNeko ( talk) 10:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
While discussing the military draft, two of my Muslim friends here in the United States mentioned that Islam prohibits them from fighting in Kaffir (non-Muslim) armies. I was hoping this article would shed some light on this but unfortunately it did not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.174.241 ( talk) 11:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I can understand the lack of images in the article. Quality images are needed.
However, irrelevent and politically charged images should not be used. An Afghan soldier displaying spoils of war, may have more to do with "spoils of war" etc and less with Islamic military jurisprudence. For example, can you show which reliable sources call the Afghan soldier's actions as conforming with and encouraged by Islamic law of war? Bless sins ( talk) 00:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
The first part of the review (Lead and the first 3 sections):
I will continue my review of the article tomorrow. Ruslik ( talk) 17:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The second part ('Legitimacy of war' and the beginning of 'International conflict' sections):
This was the second part of my review. I will continue tomorrow. Ruslik ( talk) 14:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The last part of my review:
The sources generally look good. I will wait another couple of days. If the author does not respond I will fail the article. Ruslik ( talk) 08:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC) Since there is no response from the author I will fail the article. Ruslik ( talk) 09:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Can we include some quran verses that refer to the sermon, and the ethics of warfare in islam? Faro0485 ( talk) 20:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)