This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
How much more biased can this article get? Fucking hell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ray harris1989 ( talk • contribs)
I LOL so hard at this article. Who made this? An another Muslim extremist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.186.57.2 ( talk) 17:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I acknowledge that in Islam prisoners are not only to be fed well, but also not to be physical, sexually and emotional - where can I get a credible source of information from regarding this? I read some document on prisoners that they are allowed to be tied up when they cause some kind of trouble in prison but I haven't got the article and I'm not sure whether I'm giving out the right information. I heard that they can be tied up. When is it that the prison guards are allowed stop the prisoners, hit them up and tie them up? -- Fantastic4boy 04:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Anyone interested can benefit from a lot of information from very reliable sources on the Islamic military jurisprudence article. Look under "Prisoners of War". If anyone needs more info, feel free to contact me ( User:Bless_sins, bless_sins@yahoo.ca), as I can pull out some resources on the topic. 128.100.53.151 20:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
There are schools of thought that say prisoners must be killed, it says this in the Quran. The women can be raped. Arrow740 18:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The quote for the first one.
This verse explains why one is pemitted to have conjugal relations with one's slave-girls besides the wedded wives ... This, however, does not mean that the Divine Law has provided the rich an opportunity to purchase as many slave-girls as they tike for their carnal indulgence. This is in fact how the self-seeking people have exploited and abused tire Law.
The other two I will provide later. Bless sins 20:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The second trend considered unbelief to be a serious crime, but it is not sufficient cause for execution. After teh fourth/tenth century it is clear that the second trend becomes the prevailing and predominant view. Among the important trends ... is a school of thought that argued that under no circumstances could a prisoner be executed.
Bless sins 19:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I suggest renaming this article to Prisoners of war in Islam. The proposed title has two advantages. First, it will be more descriptive (the article is about prisoners of war, not all prisoners). Secondly, it will be free from the restrictive and arguably POV word "rights". Beit Or 19:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Itaqallah, you indicated that your source for this article was wikipedia, is that true? Arrow740 19:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
This is becoming a POV piece for him. Arrow740 08:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The Wiki article [3] says it is allowed for a master to have sex with his female slave. If this is incorrect then corrections need to be made to both articles. NN 04:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
To my knowledge, men and women are allowed to have sex with one another after they are married in Islam, and if I'm not mistaken one Koranic passage stating something in details that goes like this: 'as long as it's not in the anus and in the vagina'. I've forgotten what verse it is. Anyway, we need to look at the Koran in details regarding this matter because I don't want to make bias statements on this matter. Some people say it's based on some hadith or Koranic verse, but it may not turn out to be true (they may have made it up and edit it and take words randomly from different verses). -- Fantastic4boy 09:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Let me get this straight - whoever typed up the statements, are you implying that women and children cannot be killed but adult men may be executed? So, are you saying that adult men can be killed but women and children cannot? What if an adult woman is as guilty as the adult male? Is there a punishment to that? How are the disobedient children prisoners are dealt with? -- 121.217.54.245 18:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the rather dubious source and replaced it with "Citation needed". For this kind of thing we really need a Sahih Hadith or a page number from Ibn Ishaq's Sirat. I looked in Ibn ishaq and I could not find anything about this, I also did a search for hadiths on Sunnah.com that have the words "read and write" "Badr", etc. And could not find anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.224.168.151 ( talk) 01:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
User:Al-Andalusi, I get why you would object William Muir's views on Islam on the basis that he was a "19th-century apologist of empire and mission." Even so, I don't think that's a good reason for characterizing the quote below as "outdated and unreliable."
In pursuance of Mahomet’s commands, the citizens of Medîna, and such of the Refugees as possessed houses, received the prisoners, and treated them with much consideration. “Blessings be on the men of Medina!” said one of these prisoners in later days; “they made us ride, while they themselves walked: they gave us wheaten bread to eat when there was little of it, contenting themselves with dates.”
— William Muir, The Life of Mahomet
Substantively, the quote isn't all that important, though it does do a really nice job of illustrating humane treatment of prisoners by Muhammad's followers. But I'm troubled by the argument for excluding it based on Muir's personal views and historical setting. Your concern - at least as expressed - appears to have nothing to do with whether it is an accurate representation of facts or whether the quote is applicable in the context. As far as I can tell, you're not suggesting that it is substantively incorrect or biases the discussion in any way. Rather, the objection seems to be entirely based on the author's point of view and time period.
Muir clearly had a point of view. If anything, it makes this quote more powerful, because this is positive reporting from an author who is generally critical towards Islam (and the quote was clearly attributed, so that readers weren't mislead as to where it was coming from). The article uses pro-Islamic sources from a variety of time periods. In historical writing, unlike the hard sciences, it's routine to use older sources as well as more recent ones. Despite its admitted flaws, Muir's Life of Mohammad was a massive and influential work. To categorically disregard everything in it because we find the world view of the author objectionable is needlessly limiting. EastTN ( talk) 20:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
How much more biased can this article get? Fucking hell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ray harris1989 ( talk • contribs)
I LOL so hard at this article. Who made this? An another Muslim extremist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.186.57.2 ( talk) 17:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I acknowledge that in Islam prisoners are not only to be fed well, but also not to be physical, sexually and emotional - where can I get a credible source of information from regarding this? I read some document on prisoners that they are allowed to be tied up when they cause some kind of trouble in prison but I haven't got the article and I'm not sure whether I'm giving out the right information. I heard that they can be tied up. When is it that the prison guards are allowed stop the prisoners, hit them up and tie them up? -- Fantastic4boy 04:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Anyone interested can benefit from a lot of information from very reliable sources on the Islamic military jurisprudence article. Look under "Prisoners of War". If anyone needs more info, feel free to contact me ( User:Bless_sins, bless_sins@yahoo.ca), as I can pull out some resources on the topic. 128.100.53.151 20:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
There are schools of thought that say prisoners must be killed, it says this in the Quran. The women can be raped. Arrow740 18:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
The quote for the first one.
This verse explains why one is pemitted to have conjugal relations with one's slave-girls besides the wedded wives ... This, however, does not mean that the Divine Law has provided the rich an opportunity to purchase as many slave-girls as they tike for their carnal indulgence. This is in fact how the self-seeking people have exploited and abused tire Law.
The other two I will provide later. Bless sins 20:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The second trend considered unbelief to be a serious crime, but it is not sufficient cause for execution. After teh fourth/tenth century it is clear that the second trend becomes the prevailing and predominant view. Among the important trends ... is a school of thought that argued that under no circumstances could a prisoner be executed.
Bless sins 19:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I suggest renaming this article to Prisoners of war in Islam. The proposed title has two advantages. First, it will be more descriptive (the article is about prisoners of war, not all prisoners). Secondly, it will be free from the restrictive and arguably POV word "rights". Beit Or 19:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Itaqallah, you indicated that your source for this article was wikipedia, is that true? Arrow740 19:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
This is becoming a POV piece for him. Arrow740 08:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The Wiki article [3] says it is allowed for a master to have sex with his female slave. If this is incorrect then corrections need to be made to both articles. NN 04:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
To my knowledge, men and women are allowed to have sex with one another after they are married in Islam, and if I'm not mistaken one Koranic passage stating something in details that goes like this: 'as long as it's not in the anus and in the vagina'. I've forgotten what verse it is. Anyway, we need to look at the Koran in details regarding this matter because I don't want to make bias statements on this matter. Some people say it's based on some hadith or Koranic verse, but it may not turn out to be true (they may have made it up and edit it and take words randomly from different verses). -- Fantastic4boy 09:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Let me get this straight - whoever typed up the statements, are you implying that women and children cannot be killed but adult men may be executed? So, are you saying that adult men can be killed but women and children cannot? What if an adult woman is as guilty as the adult male? Is there a punishment to that? How are the disobedient children prisoners are dealt with? -- 121.217.54.245 18:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the rather dubious source and replaced it with "Citation needed". For this kind of thing we really need a Sahih Hadith or a page number from Ibn Ishaq's Sirat. I looked in Ibn ishaq and I could not find anything about this, I also did a search for hadiths on Sunnah.com that have the words "read and write" "Badr", etc. And could not find anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.224.168.151 ( talk) 01:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
User:Al-Andalusi, I get why you would object William Muir's views on Islam on the basis that he was a "19th-century apologist of empire and mission." Even so, I don't think that's a good reason for characterizing the quote below as "outdated and unreliable."
In pursuance of Mahomet’s commands, the citizens of Medîna, and such of the Refugees as possessed houses, received the prisoners, and treated them with much consideration. “Blessings be on the men of Medina!” said one of these prisoners in later days; “they made us ride, while they themselves walked: they gave us wheaten bread to eat when there was little of it, contenting themselves with dates.”
— William Muir, The Life of Mahomet
Substantively, the quote isn't all that important, though it does do a really nice job of illustrating humane treatment of prisoners by Muhammad's followers. But I'm troubled by the argument for excluding it based on Muir's personal views and historical setting. Your concern - at least as expressed - appears to have nothing to do with whether it is an accurate representation of facts or whether the quote is applicable in the context. As far as I can tell, you're not suggesting that it is substantively incorrect or biases the discussion in any way. Rather, the objection seems to be entirely based on the author's point of view and time period.
Muir clearly had a point of view. If anything, it makes this quote more powerful, because this is positive reporting from an author who is generally critical towards Islam (and the quote was clearly attributed, so that readers weren't mislead as to where it was coming from). The article uses pro-Islamic sources from a variety of time periods. In historical writing, unlike the hard sciences, it's routine to use older sources as well as more recent ones. Despite its admitted flaws, Muir's Life of Mohammad was a massive and influential work. To categorically disregard everything in it because we find the world view of the author objectionable is needlessly limiting. EastTN ( talk) 20:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)