Talk:Islam/Archive 24

Chronological Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 Topical Archives
External Links
Archive index

Prophet Mohammed

Prophet Mohammed is a God in Hinduism. He is the God Of The World.

There is a holy Veda on Prophet Mohammed in Hinduism. There is actual holy scripts of Phophet Mohammed in Hinduism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.253.131 (talk) 04:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Mayhaps, but what has that to do with Islam? THW 145.53.112.226 (talk) 15:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Changes

The section on Jihad is completely misquoted from the source mentioned. [Firestone (1999) pp. 17-18]. The source has been incorrectly quoted. I have tried editing but the original keeps reappearing a few seconds after I have edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anabbie (talk • contribs) 09:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"removed criticism section" ... if there ever was a definition of censorship ... this is it. Why does this page gets censored ? I understand that the information "is still in there" ... but now it has to be dug up. Only a full read of the page (which is quite lengthy) will reveal the criticism. Since criticism of islam actually is about mandating mass murders and worse (such as the current widespread persecution of christians, but even more jews and hindus in muslim and non-muslim lands) the criticism should be on top. Currently the criticism of islam is that it's causing thousands of deaths every year. As such, criticism is warranted and healthy. It should not be hidden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomcpp (talk • contribs) 23:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

That is a totally ridiculous argument, that's like saying that since the US is criticised all over the Muslim (and a great portion of non-muslim) world for its brutal policies then any article on the US must have a criticism section on top telling us all about how many illegal wars the US has been involved in, how many dictators and tyrants they have supported, how many people have been assasinated by their covert organisations, how their economic might has been used to systematically starve whole populations leading to the death of millions, how they have refused to abide by the geneva conventions etc. You get my point? Islam does not mandate the persecution of other religions and that has been explained to the non-muslims by the muslim world but you choose to ignore it because it doesn't suit your agenda (whatever that might be). Jihad of war is a doctrine of self defence which no Muslim would be willing to reject, you can criticise it if you want but the widely accepted muslim view must be portrayed first (because Islam is what the Muslims follow and not what you accuse the Muslims of following) your list of accusations can then be listed at the end so you can get your chance at spreading your propaganda to the reader.WasimKhan80 07:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Aminz, please provide the full quote for this strange passage and explain why the author is authoritative. Thanks.

The general understanding of Jihad by Muslims today consists of both an internal and external duty. One that gives priority to the inner struggle against evil. The external struggle includes the struggle to make the Islamic societies conform to the Islamic norms of justice. The general modern discourse on Jihad places the traditional understanding of Jihad in terms of warfare in the context of a specific time and place that has come and gone; as such Jihad is understood to be only defensive.

Arrow740 04:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It is available on books.google.com --Aminz 04:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Provide a link. Arrow740 04:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[1], [2] --Aminz 04:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Per earlier discussions I've always supported a sentence or two on the modern conception of jihad, so this should be shrunk to that size. - Merzbow 05:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I am open to suggestions. I tried to summarize the general modern view as much as I could. --Aminz 06:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this one is shorter: "The general modern understanding of Jihad by Muslims today gives The priority to the inner struggle against evil. As an external duty, it focuses on the struggle to make the Islamic societies conform to the Islamic norms of justice while places the warfare understanding of jihad in the context of a specific time and place that has come and gone; as such Jihad is understood to be only defensive." --Aminz 06:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Frozen slice of history argument and incomplete synopsis of the concept: Negating modern conceptions is kind of an inversed presentism as is a lack of mention on other facets of the Islamic concept.

Not modern argument: I have previously cited numerous sources that discuss the four kinds of Jihad dating to as early as the 8th century and the Sufi conception as early as the 12th century. These are both during the early periods of Islam and times of significant theological works. Humphrey and multiple other sources also show the concept of Jihad existed during the Meccan period and evolved into including war later in the Medinan. Seeing as how these thoughts have been in circulation and mentioned in major works I am not sure what constitutes "modern thought". Maybe refinements and greater emphasis because of the shift in perception on war with its historic social glamor fading.

Factually incorrect argument: The expression of Jihad militarily even in Islamic theology terms is not defined as only about fighting the infidel and the jizya.

Not Undue weight argument: Definitely war became a popular and political expedient expression of Jihad and has lately lost the same but all this clearly demonstrates that it was not the definition of Jihad. Other forms are invariably almost always mentioned as well so again I have no idea where you get impression that they are unimportant. A source has even been cited that more Jihads were declared against Muslims that non-Muslims so the narrow vision focus of only against non-Muslims is itself actually an expression of undue weight.--Tigeroo 09:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This was also discussed here. Maybe we have to list every applicable source on this subject on the talk page, and then modify the paragraph to give emphasis to each aspect of jihad according to the weight the listed sources give it. - Merzbow 21:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

To Merzbow: It is always best to use various sources and combine their information. Hopefully they do not contradict :) Merzbow, I would appreciate if you could come up with a short summary.

To Tigeroo: Of course Muslims were not naturally uniform in their approach to expansion of the Islamic rule, etc etc. Even in military expansions, some were looking for money, some had religious motives, etc etc. Motivations were different. --Aminz 02:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

<reset> this is what Reuven Firestone (1999) says, p. 17-18:

The Meaning of Jihād

The semantic meaning of the Arabic term jihād has no relation to holy war or even war in general. It derives, rather from the root j.h.d., the meaning of which is to strive, exert oneself, or take extraordinary pains. Jihād is a verbal noun of the third Arabic form of the root jahada, which is defined classically as "exerting one's utmost power, efforts, endeavors, or ability in contending with an object of disapprobation." 14 Such an object is often categorized in the literature as deriving from one of three sources: a visible enemy, the devil, and aspects of one's own self. There are, therefore, many kinds of jihād, and most have nothing to do with warfare. "Jihād of the heart," for example, denotes struggle against one's own sinful inclinations, while "jihād of the tongue" requires speaking on behalf of the good and forbidding evil. 15 Various activities subsumed under jihād are said by Muhammad to distinguish true believers who are loyal to God's Prophet:

Every prophet sent by God to a nation (umma) before me has had disciples and followers who followed his ways (sunna) and obeyed his commands. But after them came successors who preached what they did not practice and practiced what they were not commanded. Whoever strives (jāhada) against them with one's hand is a believer, whoever strives against them with one's tongue is a believer, whoever strives against them with one's heart is a believer. There is nothing greater than [the size of] a mustard seed beyond that in the way of faith. 16

Muhammad is also credited with saying: "The best jihād is [speaking] a word of justice to a tyrannical ruler." 17

The qualifying phrase "in the path of God" (fi sabīl Allah) specifically distinguishes the activity of jihād as furthering or promoting God's kingdom on earth. It can be done, for example, by simply striving to behave ethically and by speaking without causing harm to others or by actively defending Islam and propagating the faith. Jihād as religiously grounded warfare, sometimes referred to as "jihād of the sword" (jihād al-sayf), is subsumed under the last two categories of defending Islam and propagating the faith, though these need not be accomplished only through war. When the term is used without qualifiers such as "of the heart" or "of the tongue," however, it is universally understood as war on behalf of Islam (equivalent to "jihād of the sword"), and the merits of engaging in such jihād are described plentifully in the most-respected religious works. 18 Nevertheless, Muslim thinkers, and particularly ascetics and mystics, often differentiate between the "greater jihād" (al-jihād al-akbar) and the "lesser jihād" (al-jihād al-aṣghar), with the former representing the struggle against the self and only the "lesser jihād" referring to warring in the path of God.

i don't believe that the various categorisations of jihad are a modern conception, the distinction was made by as early as Ibn al-Qayyim. ITAQALLAH 12:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Earlier, Eight century by Abd Ar-Rahman Al-Awza in a treatise dealing with Jihad. Enien and Humphreys say the military expression of Jihad came out in Medinan period, it existed in the Meccan period as well in the non-military sense.--Tigeroo 18:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Merzbow, the issue with the earlier arguments made for the position was the lack of sources substantiating that stance. Since that discussion multiple sources have been incorporated to substantiate those positions. As editors begin to edit gaps in information are closed. That is the strength of multiple editors, one can bring to light what others have missed and thus improve the informative value and accuracy of the content. Note the sources references and added since then do not really conflict with what was there initially, they add to it and improve its accuracy improving the collection of, as wikipedia puts it: "human knowledge". I don't really see the problem, the initial entry was not really inaccurate, it was just not complete.--Tigeroo 18:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You know guys what I think the problem is. I think Jihad is a general concept. Within one specific Islamic science, i.e. "Islamic jurisprudence" which deals with legal issue, it had a more specific meaning. Within Islam as a whole, its meaning is broader. I think the confusion arises from the fact that this relevant section seems to give undue weight to Fiqh without mentioning the general meaning of Jihad in Islam first; it doesn't talk about the meaning of jihad within say the Islamic science of Akhlaq (ethics). I guess it is only within "Islamic jurisprudence" that the majority view of traditional and modern Muslims differ. Just my 2 cents. --Aminz 19:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. I know Lewis and Britannica hold to the narrower view of jihad, and from the earlier discussion it seems that EoI does (I don't have EoI myself though). And from the above quote, "When the term is used without qualifiers such as "of the heart" or "of the tongue," however, it is universally understood as war on behalf of Islam..." So I think the meaning of unqualified jihad is still the most notable meaning, and should be listed first. - Merzbow 19:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you Merzbow with perhaps one qualifier: according to the first source, within the modern discourse of jihad, the priority is given to the inner struggle against evil. --Aminz 19:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

When Britannica presents the concept in condensed form it does not emphasize war but goes for the wider concept as well. See this from Britannica concise. Even Britannica seems to have some trouble with this issue, but it always launches into the four types almost immediately. I don't see any serious issue with moving the line, "Jihad without any qualifiers .. war" up so that it appears much earlier in mention but gets fleshed out more only later after the other aspects of Jihad have also been covered. Weight by first mention?--Tigeroo 23:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually the first p of the Britannica entry does give the "war" meaning - "jehad (“struggle,” or “battle”), a religious duty imposed on Muslims to spread Islam by waging war; jihad has come to denote any conflict waged for principle or belief and is often translated to mean “holy war.”". The second paragraph goes into the alternate meanings. The war meaning should get a sentence, followed by mentions of the others- Merzbow 17:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It treats it differently by reducing that emphasis in its concise version. "In Islam, the central doctrine that calls on believers to combat the enemies of their religion.According to the Qur'an and the Hadith, jihad is a duty that may be fulfilled in four ways:.." Anyway, your proposal sounds just like my proposal so let me put a version up for comment:

Jihad means "to strive" or "to struggle", especially in the idiomatic expression "striving in the way of God (al-jihad fi sabil Allah)". Some Muslim authorities consider it as the "sixth pillar of Islam". The term Jihad used without any qualifiers is generally understood to be referring to war on behalf of Islam. Within Fiqh Jihad can be fulfilled in four ways: ... (then back to Jihad as war and exposition)"--Tigeroo 08:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The "without any qualifiers" is a way of disguising the fact that the main meaning of the word "jihad" is martial. Arrow740 02:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

"Jihad thus cannot be equated semantically with holy war, for it's meaning is much broader, includes many activities unrelated to warfare...It would not be inaccurate, to however, suggest a definition of the sub-category of "Jihad of the sword" as any act of warring authorized by legitimate Muslim authorities..." (Reuven Firestone, Jihad: The Origin of Holy War in Islam, pg. 18) "without any qualifiers "is actually the way the source says it and even emphatically says that the meaning of Jihad is not primarily martial. It just means thats its the more commonly referenced mode of expressing the concept of Jihad, there is a reason the term "Jihad of the sword" even exists, even in classical and pre-classical dialogs. More importantly "Muslims in general do not view jihad as holy war but as a moral idea.." {Reuven Firestone, Children of Abraham: An Introduction to Judaism for Muslims, pg. 70) I agree that the military expression was more common at one point in the past, but then the others expressions have always existed alongside it in parallel. A corpus of both judicial and extra-judicial literature including the hadith carry such mentions. It's a question of things being both true yet not quite the complete equation. Case in point, targets of military Jihad were not solely or even through fiqh solely non-muslims. That the Sahfi'i held that truces were impermanent and first allowed for fighting non-muslims on the basis of religion (albeit initially limited to non-muslim arabs) in the 9th century, yet the Hanafi, who are both the oldest and the most widespread of the schools, were diametrically aligned and opposed to both stands. At any rate, I have offered up the Multiple relevant sources at all turns to substantiate all edits made. I have offered a proposition for playing up the military aspect to meet the concerns voiced without resorting to truncating and entrapping the concept into a narrow prism and it appears to me that Merzbow concurs with the proposal.--Tigeroo 22:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

i think most of us agree that there needs to be more coverage about the various categorisations. the section already specifies that within Islamic jurisprudence, jihad refers to military activity. outside of it, however, such as in the field of tazkiyya or `amr bi-l ma'ruf, it's clear that jihad refers to multiple things. ITAQALLAH 13:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Arrow, please explain the reason for this revert of yours? [3]. --Aminz 07:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Arrow, why don't you explain why you revert my edit [4]?--Aminz 20:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Didn't my edit summary make it clear to you? You cannot simply insert the word "traditional" to imply that there is a new body of jurisprudence. There isn't. Offensive jihad is still on the books. Some Muslims may think that jihad should only be defensive, and that's fine. I made minor changes to your added sentence to avoid merely muddying the waters. Arrow740 04:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

That's what the source says [5], [6].

Your personal views doesn't count. --Aminz 04:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, either out of error or intentionaly, you are misrepresenting the source. It says nothing about new jurisprudence. It even explicitly makes statements about jurisprudence, starting on page 107, in the present tense. The "understanding," i.e. the incorrect personal views of Muslims, is at odds with the actual Islamic texts and jurisprudence. I'm not stating that in the article. However, you are bringing wikipedia into error by stating it is false. If you need further clarification, feel free to ask. Arrow740 06:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The source talks about a "traditional Islam" and contrasts it with a "modern Islamic discourse". The assumption that the reference to modern here is to an "incorrect personal view" is not supported especially when it elaborates/ lists the modern jurisprudential arguments for defensive war (pg. 108). It even makes reference to Qutb and Maududi arguing against the concept of Jihad as a defensive war, which coupled with the known fact that defensive war was argued for by Ibn Taymmiyah and against by Qutb merely illustrates that both arguments have co-existed in Islamic jurisprudence for a while. Therefore it does not follow that the existence of one version means the other is "off the books" so to speak. Saying one but not the other is the correct Islamic interpretation found in "actual Islamic texts and jurisprudence" is wrong; out or in favor with the majority view during a particular age is a better understanding. Hope that makes things clearer.--Tigeroo 07:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If no one can find even one source saying there's new jurisprudence, we certainly won't include a false opposition created by wikipedians. Arrow740 04:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The source contrasts modern and traditional interpretations. Even Friedmann quoted in later sections distinguish between modern, classical and time evolving interpretations so on that score the sources clearly differentiate between them. However as the sentence stood it was unnecessary and has been duly removed. The differentiation between modern/ traditional has been reflected in the more relevant portions. Hope this works better at addressing the relevant concerns.--Tigeroo 12:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Arrow, remember in the Islam and slavery we had: "At the end of 19th century a shift in Muslim thought and interpretation of the Qur'an occurred, and slavery became seen as opposed to Islamic principles of justice and equality."

Do you see any Muslim country today engaging in military Jihad? --Aminz 00:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see your point. According to every Islamic text and the example of Muhammad, if there's a Caliph, Muslims have to attack other people. I personally think your idea that Muhammad and the early Caliphs were right to kill masses of other people to spread the control of the Islamic state, but today it would be wrong and the relevant texts are not relevant, is completely contradictory and illogical. If you have other things to discuss that are not relevant to this article, please send me an e-mail. Arrow740 00:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Multiple sources have been listed and cited on these pages which clearly indicate that the particular understanding you are pushing is not a comprehensive one and one that is significantly flawed. We certainly should not be propagating the errors of wikipedians, the cited sources make the necessary clarifications.--Tigeroo 11:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

this isn't really the place to discuss personal opinions, especially when they don't reflect the issue accurately ("attacking people" and "kill[ing] masses" for example, implying wanton indiscriminate killing, is highly inaccurate). as for distinguishing between traditional and modern, i don't think it's quite necessary. the sources clearly say that jihad has multiple categorisations which have persisted throughout Islamic history. we are agreed that this needs mention. let's focus on incorporating this one passage first before proposing other changes related to other distinctions. as for mentioning a modernist perspective about defensive jihad being the only legitimate one, it is a noteworthy view, but currently the weight given to it is a bit much. ITAQALLAH 15:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I mentioned the modern reading more briefly. I've also mentioned the general definition of Jihad. --Aminz 03:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

What is "Isra'iliyat Salaf"?

Hello: Is there any article or information that explains what an "Isra'iliyat Salaf" is so that Category:Isra'iliyat Salaf makes sense to those who have no idea what it means and can be "in on the secret", and why the articles that are in it are there? Thank you. IZAK 06:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

replied here. ITAQALLAH 13:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Correct universal mistake about the meaning of the Arabic word "islam"

The word islam is derived from the Arabic verb aslama, which means to accept, surrender or submit. This sentence appears in Wikipedia and is a very common mistake that is easy to correct. Arabic, as is implied here, quite correctly, is made of derivations. Salima= came out safe, sallama = equiv., of "said hello", saleem = sound, reasonable; salaama = safety ; salam = peace ;on and on...dozens of verbs, nouns, adjectives and adverbs; all deriving from a single three (rarely four) letter root; always in the past tence third person verb. In this case it is SLM,a word pronouncible in a vowelless language as "salama" above. Aslama, in the sentence quoted from Wpdia does not at all mean to accept, which is Qabila (an entirely different root); nor to surrender , which is istaslama, the noun from which is istislam, not islam , same root yes; nor submit, if submission implies being submissive. Aslama , apart from its now acquired and eternally standardized connotation, viz : "became a Muslim" (and, certainly, not "moslem",absolutely nothing in Arabic pronounces as in "mode" or in "rod" or in "gate" or "get") or " converted to Islam , ...etc . Arabic is all made of words construted upon these "meters" as I, possibly alone, like to call them. This is a discipline caltled "alsarf", essential to grasping language, culture and faith .Thus islam and istislam, like imdad and istimdad , iqbal and istiqbal idrak and istidrak are words deriving from the same roots but metrically reformed to carry related but different, sometimes reversed connotations .To this day, aslama can be used to say "delivered". "Delivered his soul" is "died", an everyday's expression . Deliverance, however, i.e. Islam, understandably, retains a certain exclusivity. Islam then, is the noun derived from a verb that means to deliver or hand over willingly. While surrender or the word for it in Arabic implies defeat or cooresion. Therefore we can say that the most correct translation of Islam is Seliverence (something similar to that word in English and Frensh). You deliver, that is, your soul to your Creator. --Mohamed Elhadidi 00:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Disclamer

Shouldn't there be a disclamer about Muhammad's life, how the Islamic view of him being sinless is a bit skewed?

We're not saying he was sinless. Arrow740 00:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

He was a bit more sinful than just "not sinless". I mean he committed theft, paedophilia and mass-murder. It like saying hitler was "not sinless" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomcpp (talk • contribs) 22:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Image for the history parts

There should be some images which shows different aspect of Muslim history--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 06:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Golden Age (750–1258)

There should be a picture which shows technical and scientific advancement of Mulims. Which one of these picture do you prefer:

• #1
  #1
• 
  #2
• 
  #3
• 
  #4
• #5
  #5
• 
  #6
• 
  #7
• 
  #8
• #9
  #9
• 
  #10
• 
  #11
• 
  #12

Please add your idea:

Modern times (1918–present)

We need two images which show the different aspect of Re-Islamization and Modernization of Mulim world. Feel free to add other pictures.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 07:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I added an image to the proposal below which I believe best represents islamism. Yahel Guhan 09:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• For Modernization I propose these pictures:

• #1
  #1
• 
  #2
• #3
  #3

• For Re-Islamization I propose these Pictures:

• 
  #1
• 
  #2
• #4
  #4

Islam - not a new religion

Islam is not a new religion originating from teachings of Muhammad (PBUH) , its revival of teachings of Christ and Moses. Muslims believes in teachings of Christ and Moses and Quran - the Muslim holy book - is the revival of teachings of Bible. looking for citation to add this sentence to article introduction

usman 19:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

see the second sentence of the second paragraph. ITAQALLAH 21:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Islam in Hindu Text

Islam is nothing like Christianity. Infact Islam was made after all Religons. and then built the structure of Islam. just because some prophets are Christian doesnt mean Christian and Islam is one. Infact Islam is also heavily related to Hinduism including Prophet Azam Shaheed Mohammed who is in Hindu Scriptures in our Vedas. Christianity doesnt have Prophet Muhammed in their scripts. and also Hindi Language has many words same as Arabic. there is a serious relation that needs to be investigated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.253.131 (talk) 14:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

religion

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/70/Button_lower_letter.png Subscript —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.163.254 (talk) 23:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Extremists

Ibn Warraq and Robert Spencer are not considered reliable sources. Unless they are quoted by a reliable source, in which case they belong, their opinions should not be given space on this article.Bless sins 20:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

They are notable critics and are mentioned by others as such. - Merzbow 20:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: Start a thread at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard that impartially states a question about this and refrain from commenting on it (that is to say the regulars here already butting heads over this should exercise restraint in cluttering such a discussion up with their usual disagreements). A related discussion of interest can be found here. As long as you only discuss reliability here the head butting will continue. Seek less partial perspectives on the matter.PelleSmith 20:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

there already was one. there was no consensus, but it seems there is some general agreement that he may be quoted for critism only, and then if must be attributed to him. (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Robert Spencer) Yahel Guhan 22:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and consensus was achieved there (except a couple of users). Basically it was that Spencer may be used as long as he is quoted in a reliable source (CNN for example). The same consesnsu was achieved on Ibn Warraq: Talk:Criticism_of_Muhammad#Protection. This way we ensure that only notable opinions of Spencer are presented. Secondly, giving Spencer and Warraq room here is UNDUE. Far more notable attacks on Islam are being made by Daniel Pipes.Bless sins 01:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

No, there wasn't consensus. Consensue isn't determined by how many users think it is extremist; it is determined by a general agreement, something the discussion lacked. It isn't undue. They are given one small sentence here, attributed to them, in the criticism section (the place where they are reliable), and compared to the rest of the article, that is hardly any weight. They are not "attacks" on Islam, they are legitimate criticisms. Please keep your opinions of them to yourself; it isn't relevant to the improvement of this article. Yahel Guhan 02:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please explain to me, exactly how Robert Spencer is an "extremist"? He is WP:RS as far as I'm concerned. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 18:46 01 Nov, 2007 (UTC)

we have real Islamic studies scholars saying he isn't reliable. that is sufficient. ITAQALLAH 17:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You'll have to show me these Islamic scholars where they say he isn't reliable, and on what grounds. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 19:09 01 Nov, 2007 (UTC)

[7] by Carl Ernst. ITAQALLAH 18:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I will read it and give my opinion on it. It would also be nice, if you could provide more Islamic scholars who have disproved Robert Spencer. I'm open for alternative opinions. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 22:00 01 Nov, 2007 (UTC)

All right, I just read it. That was the dumbest thing I've ever read. Carl Ernst just wrote that he doesn't consider Spencer a scholar on Islam. That is Carl's opinion. Then he makes a few attacks on Spencer's publisher. Yeah? Who cares. He doesn't refute what Spencer has written about Islam. Look, let's not be hypocrites here. It's a well known fact, that Muhammad, married a child (paedophilia), murdered Jews and Christians, was a warlord, and promoted a dictatorial Caliphate system. These are all historical facts. Just because Spencer criticizes Muhammad for his psychopathic behaviour, it doesn't mean that Robert Spencer is not a WP:RS. You don't have to be a rocket scientist in order to write critical a book about Islam. Robert Spencer is just as much a scholar on Islam as anyone else. He simply belongs to Islamic scholars who don't bullshit you by saying "islam is a religion of peace". Either you give me sources that disprove what Robert Spencer has written about Islam and how it's inaccurate, which would obviously devastate his credibility, or, if you can't give me such sources, you will simply have to accept that we cite Robert Spencer here on Wikipedia. By the way, I liked this one: The publications of Spencer belong to the class of Islamophobic extremism that is promoted and supported by right-wing organizations, who are perpetuating a type of bigotry similar to anti-Semitism and racial prejudice. "Islamophobic extremism"? Right-wing? Come on, Islamophobia is a good thing. You can't be an extremist Islamophobic. It's a good thing to criticize a religion which holds a warlord as the perfect human. It's common sense. Sorry, but you'll have to give me real sources that actually disprove what Robert Spencer has written about Islam, not this bogus Carl Ernst dude. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 22:33 01 Nov, 2007 (UTC)

your personal views are irrelevant. the fact is we have a qualified expert in Islamic studies discounting a non-expert, who doesn't even have a qualification in this area. thus, there is no reason to believe why Spencer is a reliable source. in fact, we have contraindications in that regard. ITAQALLAH 21:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

He didn't disqualify Spencer, he just made ad hominem attacks and attacked Spencer's publisher. You disqualify Spencer by pointing out inaccurate stuff he has written (provided that he has written something inaccurate about Islam, which he hasn't). Again, I ask you, I would like to read some sources of yours where Spencer is actually proven wrong. The fact that Spencer is a so-called Islamphobe, only makes him more reliable. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 22:44 01 Nov, 2007 (UTC)

actually, Ernst does disqualify Spencer, as he raises points taken into account by WP:RS#Scholarship (i.e. by saying he is a non-scholar, noting the point that Spencer's works aren't blind peer-reviewed, aren't published by scholarly presses or reviewed by the academic community and so on). ITAQALLAH 21:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think you get it. If I write something, let's say a book about World War II. It doesn't matter if I'm a scholar or not; I get my facts straight, my book will be a reliable source. Suppose that I didn't get my facts straight, then it would be easy to disprove me simply due to the inaccurate content of my book. No one has proven Spencer wrong and disqualified him based on what he has written about Islam, because they can't since he's quoting directly from the Qur'an and the Hadith. They all attack his lack of scholarship, which is really irrelevant since facts are facts. Just because Spencer lacks a scholarship on Islam, it doesn't make Muhammad less of a paedophile because Spencer claimed that Muhammad married a child. Look, let's be honest here, you don't want to cite Spencer on Wikipedia, simply because he criticizes your religion. That is what it's all about, and we know it since it so obvious. It's not about Spencer being right or wrong; he isn't wrong about Islam. It's about the fact that he criticizes Islam, and you don't want to give him credibility. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 23:04 01 Nov, 2007 (UTC)

in reference to your example: i don't think a book about history written by an untrained amateur would ever be considered a reliable source, especially if it had an ideological axe to grind. there's no point linking to WP:RS if you aren't looking at the criteria it mentions. as for needless bad-faith allusions, it can be turned right round on you, and it can be claimed that you are promoting unreliable figures like Spencer solely because you endorse and defend his anti-Islam views. in the absense of any evidence indicating reliability, we cannot conclude that he is a reliable source - especially, as mentioned before, in the light of contraindications. ITAQALLAH 22:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Aslim Taslam

no evidence has been provided as to why this and another unsourced sentence are relevant in the Etymology and meaning section. tfd.com is not a reliable source, it is a pretext to advertise another irrelevant article upon which Elias has been inserting his own POV. also, there is no need to say what Islam does not mean, as we have clarified what it does mean - to do so is redundant and reads as defensive. ITAQALLAH 17:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

tfd.com is a WP:RS and the two words are obviously cognates. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 19:10 01 Nov, 2007 (UTC)

why is tfd.com a reliable source? and how does it establish the relevance between these two words? these are two issues you have thus far avoided. that the two words are related is irrelevant - SLM has many such derivatives. Aslim Taslam is not related to the etymological derviation of the verb Islam. ITAQALLAH 18:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

See, now you're making up lies. Islam is derived from Aslama, so is Aslim Taslam. tfd.com corroborates exactly what is written about the etymology of Islam in this article, hence, it should be used as a source to cite the etymology of the word, Islam. Now, as for Aslim Taslam, it obviously, has the exact same meaning as Islam. The two words are very much related, and Aslim Taslam, is what Islam is all about: subjugate non-Muslims into accepting Islam. That is what you're supposed to do as a Muslim. That is your religious duty. Therefore, calling a link to the Aslim Taslam article from Islam, "irrelevant", is inaccurate. Also, I would like you to prove to me, how tfd.com is not a WP:RS source. Has it listed something inaccurate? Since you're the one who claims it's an unreliable source, the burden is on you to prove it. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 22:09 01 Nov, 2007 (UTC)

which source verifies that aslama is related to aslim? we already have scholarly sources telling us the etymology of Islam. you used tfd.com/islam to verify the link between Islam and the phrase "Aslim Taslam", but now it seems you have backtracked on that. aslama refers to submission to God, so all of this soapboxing about what you think Aslim Taslam means is irrelevant. you have not proven that "Aslim Taslam" is any more relevant to the etymology of Islam than "Salam" or any other SLM derivative is.

regarding tfd, not only have you been misusing it as a source, you have also not shown where/how it is reliable. reliability is proven (due to evidence), not presumed until disproven (due to lack of evidence). please see negative proof. answering-islam is also not a reliable source, and you have not explained why this redundancy about salam belongs in this section. ITAQALLAH 21:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted to Itaqallah. A free dictionary and a link to "answering islam" are about as far from reliable sources in this section as you can get. - Merzbow 21:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Aslim Taslam (Arabic: أسلم تسلم) is a phrase meaning "accept Islam and you will be saved".[1] <--- If you cannot see for yourself, that Islam (i.e. Aslama) and Taslam are related cognates, that is not my problem. I must however correct myself on one point, it's Taslam and Aslama that are related, not Aslim. And I used tfd.com to verify the etymology of Islam, not the relation of Aslim Taslam and Islam. Aslim Taslam translated, means, "accept Islam and you will be saved", needless to say, it has Islam in it. So the two words are obviously, as everyone with a pair of eyes can see, related. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 22:50 01 Nov, 2007 (UTC)

as above, which reliable source establishes the etymological link between Taslam and Aslama, or between "Aslim Taslam" and Islam/Aslama? of what precise relevance is the phrase "Aslim Taslam" (and it is the phrase and article you are advertising here, not just taslam) to the section in question? and why is it more noteworthy than the many other cognates derived from the SLM root? the section is about the root from which the word Islam is derived and its associated meaning. none of that bears any significant relevance to the article you are linking to. ITAQALLAH 22:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Wrong claim

The classical Muslim jurist ash-Shafi'i (d. 820) established the importance of the Sunnah in Islamic law, and Muslims were encouraged to emulate Muhammad's actions in their daily lives.

What does it mean? As I know Sunnah was important in Islamic law from the beginning and you can see former jurists referred to it.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

he is the one who formally codified usul al-fiqh and he argued vehemently in raising the status of the sunnah and putting it virtually on par with the Qur'an when it came to legal instruction. i have restored the sentence for now, you can find out more by reading the cited works. most academic works credit al-Shafi'i with that development. ITAQALLAH 11:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this part established the importance of the Sunnah in Islamic law should be changed. Maybe established is too emphatic.--Seyyed(t-c) 16:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

What's your idea about promoted instead of established. I suggest this one:The classical Muslim jurist ash-Shafi'i (d. 820) established the importance of the Sunnah in Islamic law.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

how about: The classical Muslim jurist ash-Shafi'i (d. 820) established the importance of the Sunnah in Islamic law, and Muslims are encouraged to emulate Muhammad's actions in their daily lives. - this makes it sound less like Muslims before al-Shafi'i weren't aware of following the Sunnah - but still retains the importance of Shafi'i establishing the role of Sunnah in legal theory. ITAQALLAH 12:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I propose this:''The classical Muslim jurist ash-Shafi'i (d. 820) promoted the importance of the Sunnah in Islamic law by codifying usul al-fiqh and putting it virtually on par with the Qur'an when it came to legal instruction. It would be more POV and clear if we mentioned what former jurists had done.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I propose using some encyclopedias and other sources to mention role of former jurists. At present the text overemphasizes the role of one jurist and neglects the others. These are some links which can be useful:Jafar ibn Muhammad, Abu Hanifah, Malik ibn Anas and Sources of Islamic doctrinal. These are some other articles: Abu Hanifa, Fiqh, Ijtihad in Shiism and Ejma.--Seyyed(t-c) 06:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)--Seyyed(t-c) 06:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

from the EoI article on "Sunnah":

"Eventually, some time after the preaching of Islam had begun, the term sunna came to stand for the generally approved standard or practice introduced by the Prophet as well as the pious Muslims of olden days, and at the instigation of al-Shāfiʿī, the sunna of the Prophet was awarded the position of the second root ( aṣl ) of Islamic law, the sharīʿa , after the Ḳurʾān."

from the EoI article on "Hadith":

"But while traditionists were collecting traditions and attempting to verify their authority, there were others who were not prepared to lay great emphasis on the importance of tradition. As a result there were disputes between parties; but largely as a result of the genius of al-Shafi'i (d. 204/820) [q.v.] the party of Tradition won the day, and Hadith came to be recognized as a foundation of Islam second only to the Kur`an. Al-Shafi'i laid emphasis on an argument which seems to have been current even before this time (cf. ZDMG , lxi (1907), 869), that when the Kur`an spoke of the Book and the Wisdom (cf. ii, 151; iii, 164; iv, 113; lxii, 2) it meant Kur`an and Hadith. Thus hadith was given a kind of secondary inspiration. Though not the eternal word of God, like the Kur`an it represented divine guidance."

most other sources say the same thing. while many other scholars before and after recognised the Sunna, it was actually al-Shafi'i who actually codified it as a major root of Islamic law (see his magnum opus al-`Umm). ITAQALLAH 22:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

i changed 'established' to 'emphasized' in the interest of compromise. what do you think? ITAQALLAH 14:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Apostasy

I think the original definition should be kept. It expands on the issue, and offers detials, something "apostasy" alone does not do. Yahel Guhan 01:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

apostasy here means to 'depart from' or 'reject' one's religious beliefs. the elaboration offers no new information of pressing importance. there was previously such an elaboration, but the consensus achieved was to just keep it short and sweet in conformity with FA guidelines promoting concise language. ITAQALLAH 12:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but maybe it's too concise. If people aren't going to be informed of what is actually meant, I suggest we remove the sentence altogether, as it isn't really saying anything. Or, we can elaborate on the term. — Adriaan (T★C) 13:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

the sentence currently conveys the meaning that that Islam prohibits apostasy, and (in very general terms) it is punishable by death in an Islamic state. that explains its presence in the section ('Other religions') altogether, as it pertains to the status of Muslims who become non-Muslims.

if i am understanding correctly, your contention is that people won't know what is meant by apostasy. i am inclined to disagree because a) apostasy is a non-specialist and common word in the English language, and b) the article Apostasy in Islam is linked for anyone seeking further information. ITAQALLAH 14:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh ok. Well I am not a native English speaker, so I wouldn't know how widely-known the meaning of the word is. But if it is as you say, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. — Adriaan (T★C) 17:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sikhism is not a syncretic religion.

There are numerous online (and I stress online) sources to confirm this:

• [8] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pureaswater (talk • contribs) 14:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
• [9]
• [10]
• [11]
• [12]

This is a highly debatable issue.

It is doubtable the Encyclopedia of Islam is a reliable source about Sikhism.

Thanks,

Pureaswater 13:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

none of the above websites qualify as reliable sources. online sources produced by publishers who are unknown or have no verifiable reputation for accuracy cannot be considered as reliable sources. Encyclopedia of Islam, published by Brill Academic press, on the other hand, is a reliable source. ITAQALLAH 20:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

wrong subheader

The header "Predestination" should be "Predestination or Divine Justice".

This is clear both from the next line referring to this two -- and from the two paragraphs.

The beginning of the second paragraph has to be changed a bit as well. It's not that the Twelver call Predestination Justice, but: Whereas the Sunnites stress the Omnipotence of God Almighty, the Twelver Shiites stress the Divine Justice. The first view allows God to make arbitrary decisions, the second sees his present and future Freedom of Choice "diminished" by his earlier decrees and promises. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.133.8.114 (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Qur'an section

please refer to the assertion of consensus by FE. Peters:

"... few have failed to be convinced that what is in our copy of the Quran is, in fact, what Muhammad taught, and is expressed in his own words... ...The search for variants in the partial versions extant before the Caliph Uthman’s alleged recension in the 640s (what can be called the “sources” behind our text) has not yielded any differences of great significance" (Peters, F. E. (Aug., 1991) "The Quest for the Historical Muhammad." International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 291-315.)

for similar points about the fragility of such variants see the Qur'an article in the Encyclopedia of Islam:

"Western scholarship has not reached a consensus on what value this mass of allegedly pre- Uthmanic variants has for our knowledge of the history of the Kur`an. Confidence in the variants declined during the 1930s as they were being collected and analysed. Bergsträsser ( Gesch. des Qor. , ii, 77-83, 92-6) still gave a fairly positive appraisal, but Jeffery (Materials, 16) wrote: “ With the increase of material one feels less inclined to venture on such a judgment of value ” , a view that came to be shared by O. Pretzl. Then after the project to prepare a critical edition of the Kur`an came to a halt, A. Fischer ( Isl. , xxviii [1948], 5) concluded that most of the allegedly pre-Kur`anic variants were later attempts by philologers to emend the `Uthmanic text."

minority views (i.e. of Luxembourg, Weil etc.) do not affect the presence of general consensus as asserted by Peters - thus your edit which presents a minority view alongside the majority view violates WP:NPOV - see WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE (in any case the presence of variant modes - ahruf - has no bearing on the assertion that the Uthmanic script was representative of Muhammad's recitation). ITAQALLAH 19:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response.You have showed view.You have not proved that they are majorty view.Moreover even if it was minorty it should be mention at least as minorty view.also pay attention that it say "has not yielded any differences of great significance" that don't mean there was no differences.And Encyclopedia of Islam "Western scholarship has not reached a consensus ".Therefore there is no consensus about this issue.You have just proved it.-Oren Tal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.72.70.229 (talk) 22:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

there is no consensus as to the significance of the pre-Uthmanic texts, hence, its significance cannot be established. therefore the basis of this 'different versions' notion belonging to a minority view is even less credible. i don't see what your lawyering with the sources is trying to prove, please read Peters more carefully, for he concludes that "few have failed to be convinced that what is in our copy of the Quran is, in fact, what Muhammad taught, and is expressed in his own words". 'differences of great significance' refers to actual words missing or added (which naturally -are- of great significance), variations in the form of qira'at were and still are accepted. that's got nothing to do with "different versions of the Qur'an" notion you are trying to promulgate. you admit that the POV you are pushing is a minority view, refer to WP:UNDUE ("Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute."). please obtain consensus for these changes before imposing them onto the article. ITAQALLAH 22:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't admit it belong to minorty view.I just said even if it were.They don't represent minorty view.Moreover I believe you are Muslim and in that case you should know very well that according to the Hadith Uthman ordered to burn all other versions.Anyway there are also Muslim scholars that mention missing verses in the Quran,including verses that Aisha said that they were part of the Quran/Muhammad revelation and they were not included in Uthman's Quran.Anyway most research agree about it (that Uthman ordered to burn all other version) and just for your knowledge on Al-Aqsa Mosque wall there are verses that don't appear in the current Quran.Oren.tal 23:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

that in no way responds to the above sources (i.e. the Peters quote) showing that most academics consider today's Qur'an to be Muhammad's transmission. you are engaging in your own original research by citing irrelevant incidences (e.g. those related to naskh al-tilāwah). researchers do agree about Uthman's standardisation in which he destroyed texts containing other accepted ahruf - that's not the same as claiming a) that there were different "versions" proper i.e. with different verses, nor b) that Uthman's rendition was inaccurate. b) is what the topic of the passage is - and what Peters refutes and claims consensus against, yet you try to claim b) by way of establishing a). ITAQALLAH 23:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Your source don't say there is consensus about the originty of the Quran.In fact they say the contrast.Moreover it (what I added) don't claim that the Quran was corrupted but just there was more than one version,other versions could be false as well.Maybe the Uthman Quran is what revealed to Muhammad but Most scholars agree that during the time of Uthman there were more than one version.In fatc I don't know about any scholar what so ever that claim the opposit.And Peters admit there are differenceses however he say it is NOT of great significance.Make the text even more accurate, but it must to be mention that there were more then one version of the Quran (during Uthman) and it shouldn't express consensus that don't exist.Oren.tal 00:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I add that all other version were false according to Uthman.Oren.tal 00:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

the source says that "few have failed to be convinced that what is in our copy of the Quran is, in fact, what Muhammad taught, and is expressed in his own words" - it's in plain English. everything else you highlight in an attempt to refute that, such as the presence of accepted dialectic qira'at and ahruf, is just plain OR and misuse of sources. ITAQALLAH 00:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Peters say "has not yielded any differences of great significance" show that he admit that there are differences.As for the few,they indeed failed to refute but that don't mean that any one prove it or that most scholars believe that the Quran never changed.The text (of Peter) defenialty don't say that.Also what I have said do NOT say that the quran was corrupted.Oren.tal 00:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The differences are far more than Qira'at.Oren.tal 00:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"has not yielded any differences of great significance" is vague and likely refers to qira'at and ahruf, not verses (omissions or insertions would be significant). thus, he concludes that the current Qur'an is representative of Muhammad's recitation. the only evidence you provide is in the form of sources and reports suggesting variants (that's true, there were seven accepted ahruf, Uthman changed it to one when confusion and cross-mixing arose) - but that in no way contradicts Peters' assertion. judging from your above comment, you seem to accept that, yet your edits have been contructed as your own original antithesis to Peters' claim. ITAQALLAH 16:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it s not about qira'at and ahruf.If you read the sources you see they speak about missing and adding versions in th version of Uthman.All of them mention difference.Non of them talk about qira'at and ahruf.They actually speak about verses tht don't appear and verses that add.Oren.tal 16:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

and that is very the notion Peters refutes (`few have failed to be convinced that what is in our copy of the Quran is, in fact, what Muhammad taught, and is expressed in his own words`). you were certainly talking above about ahruf and qirat when you claimed that all scholars were aware of the variants and of Uthman's recension; but now you seem to be conflating it with this strange minority view of ommissions and insertions in the Uthmanic mus-haf. Peters claims consensus, you are trying to disprove that with your own selection of either misinterpreted, unreliable, or minority sources. ITAQALLAH 17:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Peter my claim consensus but Encyclopedia of Islam say there is no.Anyway there is big' difference between failed to convince the Quran was changed and proving it preservation.Therefore the word "find" is wrong.Moreover things were changed from the time of Peters "These manuscripts say that the early history of the Koranic text is much more of an open question than many have suspected: the text was less stable, and therefore had less authority, than has always been claimed.” Oren.tal 17:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

<reset>::"Peter my claim consensus but Encyclopedia of Islam say there is no" - they are writing about two different things - please read the texts more closely. the quote-mining from the internet isn't relevant here, i have responded to this red herring. ITAQALLAH 17:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

pay attention "Confidence in the variants declined during the 1930s as they were being collected and analysed" Oren.tal 17:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

that disproves what you are saying. ITAQALLAH 17:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No,It don't.The fact is there were more than one version of the Quran during the time Uthman and scholars agree about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.77.82 (talk) 18:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Oren.tal, if you are having difficulty understanding such a simple passage, you should reconsider these novel in-depth analyses you are offering. ITAQALLAH 19:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that they are less certain about the reliability of the pre -Uthman text don't say it is proof that there were none.Maybe the text they have is not so valid.Oren.tal 19:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)\

and by the way I am not the subject here.So don't change the head line because it is about the Quran preservation and not me.Oren.tal 19:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Oren.tal, please have the courtesy to not change my comments. "different versions of the Qur'an" is your own perception. ITAQALLAH 23:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not your comment.I don't touch your comment.Yhis is a name of subject.The name right now is only confusing.

I think there is dispute over the order of the quranic verses; over the readings of certain words (at the time of writing "dot" was not used) so some variant recitations. That's pretty much it. Maybe Oren.tal can cite an specific example. --Aminz 20:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The consensus among scholars (and WP editors) is the view asserted by Peters which is cited in the article. → AA ^(talk) — 10:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Here I give you the links:

http://books.google.com/books?id=KSZhy_x7r2QC&pg=PA1&dq=Quran&as_brr=1&ei=Y0ZRR9OKO5mepgLcwYy5DQ&sig=E3meVpjYpu9PR2m8PjR-XZxVmJY#PPA3,M1

http://books.google.com/books?hl=iw&lr=&id=kXvhz04I-0YC&oi=fnd&pg=PP13&dq=Uthman+Quran+burn&ots=kpQ9ds5Urw&sig=KsG2PwOvYMxLCc01AdoPdPnLCew

http://books.google.com/books?hl=iw&lr=&id=kXvhz04I-0YC&oi=fnd&pg=PP13&dq=Uthman+Quran+burn&ots=kpQ9ds5Urw&sig=KsG2PwOvYMxLCc01AdoPdPnLCew http://books.google.com/books?hl=iw&lr=&id=cbfORLWv1HkC&oi=fnd&pg=RA1-PA112&dq=Uthman+Quran+burn&ots=tWSoEn5iSY&sig=e6iIpKbdKQEpIYo0AMi1p4-jIaU http://www.jstor.org/view/13561898/ap020033/02a00080/0 http://www.islamlighthouse.com/admin/1sub/books/098enchbook.pdf http://www.jstor.org/view/05855292/ap050077/05a00020/0 http://books.google.com/books?hl=iw&lr=&id=qIDZIep-GIQC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=Uthman+Quran+burn&ots=Biwda4VKNv&sig=4n8XXkmNv47B_1a1SCWKY0MxyNA http://books.google.com/books?hl=iw&lr=&id=WBx2ejzo_v0C&oi=fnd&pg=PA11&dq=Uthman+Quran+burn&ots=ULZ4eonsEw&sig=zns_n-SVuI8OxyxJIRa98rmvAeA#PPA81,M1 I will back to this topic in the —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.72.151.98 (talk) 09:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Immigrate, Populate, Dominate

The article on Organization of the Islamic Conference asserts:

In 1982, the foreign ministers of the OIC adopted the controversial plan to Immigrate, Populate, Dominate to serve as a guidance for the member states in the matters of Islamic presence in other non-Muslim countries.

But there is no source, and I can find no references for it. Nor does it seem likely that such an explosive plan would have escaped the notice of right-wingers and the media worldwide.

Could someone please verify this?

-- 99.226.23.121 (talk) 05:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed it. If someone wants it to go back in they will have to find a source. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

sigiwan is da best and u know dis man —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.219.189.8 (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It is more or less a revival of the same type of hatred that European leaders showed towards Jews not even a century ago. They may as well start writing a book called "The Protocols of the Elders of Mecca." Muslim immigration to Europe is not rapid enough to succeed in doing such a thing, the majority of the Muslims in Europe were brought over by Europeans; they are not illegally immigrating for the most part. France did it to themselves due to immigration from French Algeria, Germany did it to themselves because they had a shortage of male labor following World War II. Even if a source is found, I think it's wishful thinking by both the right wing and "Islamic Radicals" that this passive invasion will ever take place. Most Muslims do want to integrate in most of their countries, and perhaps the problems lay moreso with the Europeans because the United States has virtually no problems with its 7,000,000 strong Muslim community, most of whom are middle-class or better. -68.43.58.42 21:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

First Sentence

The first sentence of this article states that Islam was founded by Muhammad scum. Please delete "scum" from this article.

Qu'aran and Bible Criticism

On the Article Christianity Under the section "bible" There is a see also link to "Criticism of the Bible" I thought that this did not portray a neutral point of view, as the Section on the koran in this page does not have a link to criticism of the koran.

After edititing, and having my edit removed several times, i thought, for the sake of neutrality, that instead of removing the Bible Criticism link, i should instead add a Criticism of the Qu'aran link, for the sake of fairness to both Christians and Muslims and not portraying either in a better light than the other.

I added the link here on Islam, to Criticism of the Koran, and it has been removed. For the sake of Neutrality, either the link to "Criticism of the Bible" should be removed from the Christianity page, or "Criticism of the Qu'aran should be added to the Islam page. I am happy with either personally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathaytace (talk • contribs) 18:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

well... this article doesn't need to employ a feature just because another article does. the general criticism article, Criticism of Islam, has been linked in the text body and on the Islam template. you may also note that Criticism of the Qur'an is linked to in the Islam topics template at the bottom of the article. ITAQALLAH 18:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

The article has been targeted by vandalisms will someone please fix it and lock it, its embarrassing. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.3.200.174 (talk) 01:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

could you please clarify? ITAQALLAH 17:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ahmadiyya Movement

I see no problem with putting the Ahmadi in the others section of the various sects and groups in Islam as I do know like other sects not associated with the main 2, it holds controversial beliefs. What I do however see a problem with is putting it in the same group as different religions and off-shoots of Islam. Ahmadis do not claim to not be Muslims or not follow Islam but as the differences I gave in the paragraph I suggested for them as well as their page does, they have mainly have certain latter day beliefs that are very different from the mainstream but not enough to say they created a different religion as they do essentially follow Islam. The sources aren't hard to find if that was all that was the problem though. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 07:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

how about changing 'religions' to 'traditions'? thus reading "The Yazidi, Druze, Ahmadiyya, Bábí, Bahá'í, Berghouata and Ha-Mim traditions either emerged out of Islam or came to share certain beliefs with Islam. Sikhism, founded by Guru Nanak in late fifteenth century Punjab, incorporates aspects of both Islam and Hinduism." the reason i wouldn't suggest a whole paragraph on Ahmadiyya is because of undue weight, i don't think it's so much more significant than these other groups to merit mutliple sentences.. ITAQALLAH 14:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Traditions? I don't know what you meant to imply by that but I didn't say that the designation given to the other groups is wrong, it is right b/c none of the other groups claim to be part of Islam AFAIK and so they are separate religions. The reason I do suggest Ahmadiyyat have its own paragraph is b/c not only is it a significant modern day movement in Islam but if a group like the Kharijites can be put separately, I see no problem with this being separate either. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 23:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

i suggested traditions because i thought you objected to referring to Ahmadiyya as a religion. i think we could mention Ahmadiyya in the para about Kharijites (the reason they have a little more info is that they were the first sect to have emerged), but i think we should keep it to a well-sourced sentence or two. ITAQALLAH 18:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I do reject Ahmadiyyat being called a separate religion and then being grouped with other beliefs that make it clear that they are separate religions. Calling them Traditions wont make them fit together better and I'm still not sure what that was supposed to imply they were. If it can be separated into at least 2 or 3 sentences, that would be satisfactory. I doubt however a short summary could be jammed into one sentence appropriately. Jedi Master MIK (talk) 06:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see, thats what IIRC they're called on the Muhammad page. Still not sure what it implies though. Traditions are sayings and practices of Muhammad, why would they be called that? Jedi Master MIK (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

religious traditions simply means religious practices, conceptions or ideologies. it's not related to what's written on Muhammad. if you don't consider that an appropriate solution, could you propose the passage you'd like to see implemented in the article (with the relevant sourcing) in this section? ITAQALLAH 20:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

perpetuality/treaties

was looking at the EoI articles on Dar as-Sulh/Dar al-'Ahd. it was the opinion of those who divided lands into only dar al-islam/harb, for example that any such treaties would be of temporary nature until conditions became favourable. others, however (such as Shafi'i) stated that an 'ahd (agreement/covenant) could be established so long as they paid kharaj (in which case war cannot be declared upon them) - in return maintaining autonomous rule - in theory, these lands were to be ultimately considered dar al-islam (due to payment of kharaj). the EoI elaborates on certain treaties formed by Mu'awiya (with Armenian princes), and by the Ottomans (with Christian tributaries). i don't think it's as simplistic as currently expressed. ITAQALLAH 19:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Mu'awiya and the Ottomans were not sources of Islamic law as the caliphs until Ali were. So your point is that one of the four schools said that if non-Muslim vassal states paid dhimmi taxes then theoretically they were in dar al-islam? Maybe this section needs some more work. Something between the current version and your version would probably be best. Arrow740 (talk) 23:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

it's got nothing to do with who is or isn't a source of law, it's about how jurists - early and latter - interpreted the primary texts (in any case, people might argue for an earlier precedent with the Christians of Nubia). i didn't say one in four, i gave the example of al-Shafi'i as a proponent of this view that agreements may be established and that the nation may continue controlling their land and maintaining autonomous rule, subject to payment of a land tax. so the issue cannot be painted as black and white as presented in the article. ITAQALLAH 18:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you're creating a false opposition. It is a fact that unless some state submits to the authority of Islam in some way, either by being occupied or surrendering or becoming a tributary, then there is no permanent peace. That's the sourced material we have and your new addition doesn't contradict that. There might be some disagreement as to the degree of subjugation required but the principal is that without subjugation there is no permanent peace. Arrow740 (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

the peace lasts so long as the autonomous states pay tribute to the neighbouring Islamic state (hence it becomes dar al-'ahd) - in which case the Imam may not repudiate the agreement when he thinks conditions become favourable for attacking - and that's the difference. ITAQALLAH 19:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't be too difficult to state this the right way. The point is that unless a state pays the jizya and kharaj as a sign of submission then the Muslims can break the treaty. Please provide the extract saying that imam cannot break it in Shafi'i jurisprudence. Arrow740 (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

no, the agreement is that they pay kharaj - if they fail to pay it, then they have broken the agreement. ITAQALLAH 19:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

this is a classic case of WP:SYNTH, as it attempts tie two sources in making novel, confusing assertions. the whole issue of repudiation and agreement length is disputed as expressed previously (i.e. the opinion of those who say that so long as kharaj is being paid, the state remains autonomous and the Imam may not break the agreement)- which is why i kept the prose simple. also, the language is needlessly slanted with the insertion of imperatives- and there is no explanation for why my copyedits are being undone. ITAQALLAH 00:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

What novel assertion is being made? That's your only argument for removal. Explain it. Arrow740 (talk) 21:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It's expained quite clearly above - some authorities state that agreements may not be repudiated by the Imam; and that states in dar al-ahd may remain autonomous and independent so long as they pay kharaj. You've formed a narrative expressed by neither source. ITAQALLAH 21:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You were unable to produce a novel assertion, because there isn't one. Arrow740 (talk) 04:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I've explained it twice now at least - please cease this disruption. ITAQALLAH 14:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Hanafi see no automatic resumption without provocation or some lapse in terms and the pre-conditions for the definition of Dar al Harb are proximity, muslim rulers but most importantly a lack of security of Muslims in the land. There is no Dar al Ahd for them, non-payment of Kharaj would be treated as provincial rebellion.
2. There is also the general understanding today that the generic requirement of the military Jihad has lapsed as a result of global treaties (Globally a Dar al Ahd).
3. Majid Khadduri mentions Jihad as a perpetual state of war but he also states that is not an official theologically formulated position but an extrapolated opinion (as one of a missionary bent) therefore any such statement requires attribution to the source and is not an Islamic fact. He also states that this concept of perpetual war did NOT equate to a theological understanding requiring a perpetual state of fighting but one that can be achieved passively, through prosletization and the maintainance of safety in Dar al Islam via a strong deterrent capability.--Tigeroo (talk) 13:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a logical fallacy with the inclusion of the termination material because it pre-supposes that Jihad is defined as war against non-Muslims. Theologically jihad does not single out non-Muslims as the only valid opponents in a Jihad. They are again one sub-category in the fiqh literatures discussing whom it may be waged against.

The military expression of Jihad as its communal expression was a "tool of statecraft" used both for and against the Islamic state. While raids for the expansion of the state are a part of the Jihad history and literature, singling them out exclusively for mention tends to singularly impose a definition as "military war directed exclusively against non-Muslims". This is incomplete. Jihad has an equally long history in theological/ judicial discussions and literature on its legality as a vehicle for legitimizing use of force in situations of internal resistance and sectarian strife (note that Humphreys states that most Jihads were waged against Muslims).

Yes, there is a POV that places the focus solely on the non_Muslims aspect but it is not the only POV. To this end I agree with the editor who had truncated the section earlier along the lines that the Jihad section in this article just needs to get the gist out (see comparative size with other sections) and that the details be addressed in the main article. Details of how, or under what conditions and what the differing POVs on the situation are should be detailed in the page on Jihad where there is adequate room for the proper treatment of all the facets. I am not familiar with the contents of the EoI article, however from the representations reflected in the article, it seems to appear a bit generic or of a particular POV by appearing to raise content issues with other works dealing more fully with the subject. I favor a return to the last stable version of this section because there is not sufficient space in this article for a balanced treatment of the issues raised by the current edit.--Tigeroo (talk) 13:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

you raise some valid points, Tigeroo. i don't think we should favour deferring it to the Jihad article however, i am sure a brief and neutral summary is possible. ITAQALLAH 23:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's see some sources. Explain what you disagree with in my latest edit, itaqallah. Arrow740 (talk) 03:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

i explained your innappropriate synthesis above. ITAQALLAH 14:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Tigeroo, you may be ashamed of certain aspects of Islam. That doesn't mean you have to be dishonest. In your latest edit, you state: "Under most circumstances and for most Muslims, jihad is a collective duty (fard kifaya): one whose performance by some individuals exempts the others; for the rest of the populace, this happens only in the case of a general mobilization." This is only true of offensive jihad. We were saying that from the sources, but you removed it and replaced it with falsehood. If you don't like certain parts of Islam you have certain options. Lying about them on wikipedia articles is not one of them. Arrow740 (talk) 06:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

"you have to be dishonest", "replaced it with falsehood", "Lying about them". I urge Arrow740 to stop these violations of WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA.Bless sins (talk) 06:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources there are numerous, Humphreys and Firestone have already been mentioned and quoted, two other works are War And Peace in the Law of Islam by Majid Khadduri and Is Jihad a Just War? by Hilmi M. Zawati and a fair summary covering the various POVs on the issues can be found in Warrant for Terror: The Fatwas of Radical Islam and the Duty to Jihad by Shmuel Bar. There is really no shortage of sources for this at all. I've turned it into as a neat a brief neutral summary as I can see. The problem I see is pinning down fiqh discussions concerning the expression Jihad as so and so when they have infact evolved over time as the masala and dururah have changed. Or in simple english, the underlying assumptions of the age. If possible go ahead and add a line summarizing this, I left it out because I was not able to see how it could be done without extending the section even more.--Tigeroo (talk) 06:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Arrow740 I don't believe I have to remind you of wikipolicies on acceptable behavior. No that sentence is not true of only offensive jihad as you misinterpret it applies equally to defensive jihad. i.e. if a Muslims nation is attacked it is not the obligation of the entire ummah to take up arms. Heck there is even that there is no such thing as a Offensive Jihad and only a Defensive Jihad. I have already highlighted how your statements are only one aspect of a bigger picture. I could counter-posit that you are pushing a particular POV to exclusion of anything else. Everything can be further sourced and substantiated if you would like it to be.--Tigeroo (talk) 06:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Edits discussion points

1. )"striving in the way of God" (al-jihad fi sabil Allah)
   This is what makes Jihad an Islamic concept and not just a normal struggle. Why does this keep getting struck out? Everyone from Lewis & Spencer to Osama or Ibn Baaz talk about it and it is present in almost every intro section of a Jihad book. As Michael Bonner puts it : "When followed by the modifying phrase fi sabil Allah, “in the path of God,” or when—as often—this phrase is absent but assumed to be in force, jihad has the specific sense of fighting for the sake of God (whatever we understand that to mean)."
2. )"Within Islamic jurisprudence, jihad is usually taken to mean military exertion against non-Muslim combatants in the defense or expansion of the Islamic state, the ultimate purpose of which is to establish the universal domination of Islam. Jihad, the only form of warfare permissible in Islamic law, may be declared against states which refuse to convert to Islam or submit to Islamic rule."
   All Books on Jihad fiqh state that Jihad can be declared against both Muslims and Non-Muslims, classiy them separately and detail the rules governing each type. Here is what I put in:
   Jihad is the only form of warfare permissible under Islamic law and may be declared against apostates, rebels, highway robbers, violent groups, unIslamic leaders or non-Muslim states which refuse to convert to Islam or submit to Islamic rule.
3. )It implied that this quest for domination requires a perpetual active military engagement. Fiqh has evolved to deal with the change since the age of empire and does not require this anymore and that passive means are acceptable means to the goal. See Michael Bonner quote again summarizing this difference in POVs For others, jihad represents a universalist, globalizing force of its own: among these there is a wide spectrum of views. At one end of this spectrum, anti-Islamic polemicists use jihad as proof of Islam’s innate violence and its incompatibility with civilized norms.4 At the other end of the spectrum, some writers insist that jihad has little or nothing to do with externally directed violence. Instead, they declare jihad to be a defensive principle,5 or else to be utterly pacific, inward-directed, and the basis of the true meaning of Islam which, they say, is peace. The solution I propose to the universalize statement is achieved by moving it to the intro paragraph and not getting drawn into the debate by characterizing/ expounding on either of the POVs here.
4. )It ceases when Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians submit to the authority of Islam and agree to pay the jizya (a poll tax) and kharaj (a land tax), and when polytheists convert to Islam. Treaties (`ahd) may be established, subject to payment of the kharaj, although jurists differ over its permitted longevity.
   There are two issues with this. One, it is redundant after the statement that Jihad's goal is universalize Islam, the hows (and this only one of them need again not be detailed here; this allows us to trim the section. Two, it only covers how one type of Jihad may end and then again only in the case of a victory. Three, there is only agreement on the requirement of conversion for Arab polytheists. Most schools do not hold the requirement of conversion for non-Arab polytheists.
5. )One common understanding of Jihad by Muslims today is that it should only be defensive, and that the concept includes a struggle to make the Islamic societies conform to the Islamic norms of justice.
   One, this then becomes redundant because we don't have to include this as to depov the section by including a mention of the modern view to contrast with the older version. Two, this is already implied or can be synthesised with the earlier quote in the intro by Esposito.
6. )Some Muslim authorities, especially among the Shi'a and Sufis, distinguish between the "greater jihad", which pertains to spiritual self-perfection, and the "lesser jihad", defined as warfare. Jihad also refers to one's striving to attain religious and moral perfection.
   Again the second sentence logically can be struck and the first placed beside the Esposito quote because it is talking about the same theme. It makes no sense and makes for awkward transition.--Tigeroo (talk) 21:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The points you raise are very interesting. I'll have a closer look at the specific arguments in a while, but I would encourage all to participate now instead of reverting later. ITAQALLAH 17:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Tigeroo, itaqallah's last version is the result of long collaboration. It relies on the EoI article and the others sources cited. If you have demonstrably reliable sources which contradict the sources cited, provide them. If not, stop this disruption and respect the consensus. Arrow740 (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:CCC. EoI presents as both being a particular POV which has been demonstrated as being non-comprehensive. The current section is sourced and cited as well and additionally various other works and quotes have been cited both in the discussion and at various places. If you have something in particular which you wish me to further cite to you for clarity that can easily be done. It would have been easier to have this discussion had you taken advantage of the space provided by the protection period.--Tigeroo (talk) 05:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I asked you to provide sources, and you didn't. You are removing a large amount of sourced text from itaqallah's version. Arrow740 (talk) 07:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Arrow, the question isn't here of adding sourced content. This article is HUGE. Rather it is of presenting notable views without giving a minority view too much space. Please see WP:UNDUE in that regards.Bless sins (talk) 08:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Durant quote? Do you think his is a minority view? A quick search on google books reveals this to be a highly notable quote and and accurate description of events. Do you have a substantive criticism of it? Arrow740 (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Once again, you are going to have to be a bit more specific. A source for what? There are multiple points and arguments that I have raised which are cited across the page. Which one in particular do you want me to cite in greater detail??--Tigeroo (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You have removed a large amount of sourced text from the jihad section. Could you explain these removals? Arrow740 (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats just what this section is about.--213.42.21.60 (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You may be interested

In the discussion [here]. Abtract (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Abtract, regarding your reinsertion of the criticism section, it was diffused into the rest of the article as per consensus here. it can now be found in the various sections of Islam#History. ITAQALLAH 15:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Principles of Islam

Is there a reason why the Principles of Islam are not mentioned in this article? That is, islam (submission to God and God alone), iman (faith in God, his messengers, and angels), and ihsan (to do what is beautiful). It seems like these three concepts are fairly necessary for a complete understanding of the Islamic faith and practice. Bgamari (talk) 19:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, we should get an admin to do it since its locked til Jan. 3 (a thanks to who locked it) --Maz640 (talk) 14:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources which codify this in the way stated then I am sure it would be fine to incorporate it. ITAQALLAH 14:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the section Beliefs section can be easily changed slightly to reflect the six articles of Iman: mainly beleif in Allah, the angels, his books, his messengers, the last day and divine destiny (Qadr). It is the same thing currently, but probably just need some cleaning up and retitling to align with the sub-pages. As far ash Ihsan and Taqwa go, not sure how or even if they need to go up here as they have more to do with how to be a "good" muslim, than just a muslim--Tigeroo (talk) 07:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Can some one prepare demographic map like increase speed map

It would be great to see such map as Islam is fastest groving religion. Regards, S. Pal, Istanbul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.215.194.87 (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. You idea sounds interesting. I know what a demographic map is, what is an "increase speed map"?Bless sins (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Imperialistic Jihad is an oxymoron

Some of the statements made in the Jihad section seem to be incorrect. Jihad can not be declared against a non-muslims for the simple fact that they do not believe in Islam. Fundamentally, Jihad is a struggle against injustice and/or opression. The idea of Jihad within the context of idelogical warefare for the sake of millitary expansion was a mechnisim used by Arab rulers to rechannel their subjects' aggressive pre-Islamic way of (dessert) life. The contemprary idea of 'jihad' came from pakistan abd began with Sayyid Ahmed of Bareili (d. 1831), and later controversially expanded by Gen Zia-ul-Haq . The Quran further suppourts this idea (urah al-Hujurat 49:13) in stating that God has created man of different tribes and nations in order to get to know one another. This in no means contradicts the idea of defensive jihad which would allow millitray tactics such as pre-emptive stike. I recommend the removal of portions that define Jihad as anti-nonmuslim or imperialistic in nature.

18:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

So Muhammad was wrong about jihad, is that it? Arrow740 (talk) 20:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The nature of Jihad is dependent upon the situation and the interpretation. Obviously, the decline of ijtihad (striving by the pen/Jihad by the pen)is one of the principal reasons why technology, science, philosophy and learning began to decline in the Muslim World. On the other end, it would be nonsensical to not consider Ottoman expansion into Constantinople to have not been a part of Jihad by the sword. The nature of Jihad includes many facets; it should be included that one of these facets is political expansion, however, it should also be noted that Jihad is not a pillar of Islam, nor is it limited to one interpretation or form. From the Sufi era until the beginning of British Imperialism, Jihad was primarily considered figurative in much of Central Asia, South Asia, and on the Iranian plateau. -Rosywounds (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

New additions

Please discuss these new additions here before inserting them into the article. Those sections reflect substantial collaboration to maintain balance, and also reflect longstanding consensus. Inserting opinionated or otherwise biased material to disrupt that is not on. ITAQALLAH 22:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You know that my new additions are reliably sourced. No one is concerned with the old concensus, as Tigeroo, BS, and you have all been simply edit-warring. You yourself have shown no concern for the consensus version of the jihad section. If concensus has changed we have to accept that and move on. Arrow740 (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I see you inserting opinionated tidbits from Lewis, and when people revert you requesting involvement on the talk page, instead of reverting, you just carry on adding other material to continue the disruption. There's no indication that consensus has changed, and there's certainly no consensus on your changes. You have yet to explain these additions. ITAQALLAH —Preceding comment was added at 22:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Your vandalistic attacks on this article are the disruption. What do you need "explained?" Are you having trouble accessing the text? I think these sourced additions speak for themselves. Enough vague insinuations. You mentioned that you thought Serge Trifkovic, a trained historian, was not a reliable source. Could you explain that? Arrow740 (talk) 23:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

My new addition from Trifkovic could also be sourced elsewhere. I'm not saying Trifkovic is unreliable, because he's not. But if you'd prefer another source that's fine with me. This information is not in dispute, is it? Arrow740 (talk) 23:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The additions do speak for themselves: what needs to be explained is why you are selectively taking certain tidbits from authors and imposing them on the article to serve some sort of agenda.

As for Trifkovic, you already asked about him on Talk:Muhammad. I had responded, so you can reply there. ITAQALLAH 23:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)