Talk:Islamic military jurisprudence/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

To Bless sins

Please note that while you continued the edit war , Pecher has accepted the request for mediation. I hope that you will remove the disputed content and join our mediation effort to resolve the dispute. Zeq 19:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

ZEQ, you have added:"However, this rule is not adheerede to by Islamic warriers (Mujahadeen in Iraq who riutinly beheading civilians hostages. [1],[2]". Question:Why is it OK for you to mention the actions of "Islamic warriers (Mujahadeen in Iraq", but not OK for me to mention the declaration representing the majority of the Muslim World?Bless sins 11:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You have added something about use of swords, surly you know how the muslim mujahadeen use swords in the name of Islam. Have you seen the Daniel Pearl beheading video where also while calling "Alla Hu Akbar" they behead him ? So if the rules prevent use of swords on an armed civilians it is important to show how applicabale are those laws. maybe you prefer to just remove all present day issues and keep this articvle to it's original form ?Zeq 14:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the amalgame you make between these terrorists and Muslims is offending ? Alithien 14:53, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

They are Muslims, they are obying Islam laws (as they see them) and they operate in the name of Islam. Zeq 14:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

What is worthy of notice is that the "terrorists" are "Muslims". They also "operate in the name of Islam."

On the other hand the declaration drafted by governments of 45+ Muslim nations (representing the vast majority of the Muslim World) is somehow unworthy of mentioning??? Why?Bless sins 21:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The declaration is a piece of paper without any validity, while terrorism is for real. Pecher ^Talk 21:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It is true that terrorism is action and delaration is just words, but words are more important than action. EX. Bible, quran, guru grant sahib etc. are all words (or pieces of paper but very powerful).

What you wrote is islamophobia. You should think about that. The fact there are muslim terrorist and terrorist that claim to defend islamic values do not mean that Muslims are terrorist or that Islam is a religion of war. Jewish genocided canaan nation. Does it mena they are all genocidar ? You behave like those who promoted Protocoles. You should think about that. Alithien 10:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Please read what was writen. It is not about muslims as a whole but about rule of war in islam. For that subject the behaviour of mujahadeen is legitimate. Nothing in the article or the talk page was about all muslims. Zeq 11:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

So the behaviour of some "Mujahadeen" is relevent, but the actions of 45 Muslim nations (in drafting a declaration) is not? Bless sins 14:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

You have yet to respond-->.

In any case this article is about what the "Rules of war in Islam" are, not whether they are upheld or not.Bless sins 14:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

We are not here to judge, we are here to report. The application of "islam rule of war" by people who proclaim to represent Islam is naturaly applipable to this article. For NPOV you are free to bring examples in which these rules are actually respected and applied. Happy search. Zeq 16:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not Muslims apply some aspect of Islam in their lives, is not what this article is about. It is about what a rule of war in Islam is. It is also about how general muslim percieve what their religion teaches them. The "mujahadeen" could be doing what they do for whatever reason, perhaps at the order of secular Baathists. Only if some Muslims declare a rule of war in Islam (and are notable enough), only then does it become a rule of war.Bless sins 20:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I do think the cario declaration should get a few lines about it, including that it is not binding in any way. This declaration is about the rules of war that "should" be followed by these modern islamic states, so has some relivence in the bottom section of the artical.Hypnosadist 21:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, (finally someone agrees). However, you must realize that the laws of Islam aren't binding in anyway. If I don't do what the Quran says, no one can force me to, not in a secular western country anyways.Bless sins 10:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I also mostly agree with you. However the issue of whether the Cario (sp?) declaration is binding is an interesting one. While I'm not an expert on international law and haven't even read the Cario decleration article or the mention of it on this page, I believe technically if you've signed the declaration, it means you officially recognise the declaration and in that respect, it is binding (until you withdraw your recognition). However should you fail to follow the declaration, there is little that can be done, unless there is an existing international framework for dealing with those who fail to respect the declaration. But if you also subsequently ratify the the declaration, that is you introduce new laws or changes existing laws to ensure they are fully complaint with and fully recognise the declaration it should be binding in your country. Failure of the government (or other people) to abide by the laws of the country (which should include the details declaration if you've ratified it) is illegal, although obviously if the government does it and the courts are unwilling or unable to stop it, then not much can be done. Some similarities perhaps can be seen to the UDHR in that it is also binding. There is technically a framework to deal with those who fail to abide by it but obviously, the implementation of this framework has a lot of dispute. However a number of countries have enacted laws which in theory fully recognise all elements of the declaration. Although of course, the interpretation of the declaration and what is required to abide by it varies greatly. As said earlier, I don't know much about the Cario declaration but it would be interesting whether and how this declaration is recognised by the states that signed it... Nil Einne 15:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, I should add that in terms of the application, the actions of mujaheeden should only be a minority issue. AFAIK, no Muslim country has been involved in a formal war since the declaration was signed. The actions of these governments (and their soldiers etc) in war is of far more relevance then the actions of the mujaheeden. I'm not saying the actions of mujaheeden are completely irrelevant but we need to keep things in perspective. It would be wrong to point out the actions of mujaheeden if we fail to point out that these are only a minority. Talking of mujaheeden, we also need to keep things in perspective when it comes to them. Pointing out cases such as Daniel Pearl without considering the actions of other mujaheeden, and whether they support such actions would be quite wrong. Just because some people may do certain actions doesn't mean they are supported or considered acceptable behaviour by other people who go under the same banner. (For example, it would be wrong to say Americans don't respect the rules of war because of the Hadiytha incident alone). Also, we need to keep things in perspective in terms of what kind of climate they occured in. I don't personally think the actions of Bosnian Muslims or Checnya Muslims in war is of much relevance but should it be decided they are, we need to consider them in the climate they occured in...

The fact that neither the Cairo Declaration or the Sharia rule of war have any structure for implimentation is very important. It means they are effectivly meaningless bits of paper. Rules only count if they are enforced, these are apperantly not. Let it be understood that Muslims believe these rules will be enforced by GOD. I think that why these rules will not be enforced should be mentioned. As a second point should this artical be linked with the Geneva Convention in a comparison with ratification and enforcement.Hypnosadist 15:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The fatwas of scholars, and opinions of the ulema are also bits of paper, and they are rules that ae never enforced (except maybe in Iran and Saudi Arabia). Should we exclude from this article all opinions of Muslim scholars and limit it to the Quran and Hadith only???Bless sins 00:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It must be noted, by everyone, that delaration itself states,

The Islamic Shari'ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of the articles of this Declaration.

Bless sins 17:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Conflicting info

One traditional opinion is that no prisoners of war may be executed; this is the most widely accepted view. This is upheld by the Hanafi Maddhab. However, the opinion of the Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali and Jafari Maddhabs is that adult, male prisoners of war may be executed at the discretion of the Islamic supreme leader, or those legally deputized by him.[citation needed] This opinion was also upheld by the medieval Muslim judge, Sa'id bin Jubair (665-714 AD). These opinions are the most widely held in the Muslim world.

There are two conflicting claims here. One says that the most widely accepted view is that no POWs may be executed. The other says that the most widely held view is that that adult, male POWs may be executed at the discretion of the Islamic supreme leader or those deputised by thim. Neither of these is cited/referenced and as such, I suggest both of these be removed. (In any case, I'm skeptical of such claims, how exactly do you get an idea of what is the most widely accepted view with such a complex issue for such a large, widespread and heterogynous population). We should of course leave discussion of the known viewpoints. Nil Einne 15:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

These contradictory claims for most muslim opinion should be deleated, leaving the factual information on which schools of sharia say.Hypnosadist 15:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Which quotes need citations?

So, which quotes need ciatitions? Place them here (with an indication to the section they are in), and I will try to back them up with sources. Even better, put tags in the article where you think a ciation is needed, and i'll provide a ciatation or remove the quote.Bless sins 12:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Whenever you cite a book, always provide page numbers; otherwise, the citation is useless because it cannot be verified by other editors. Pecher ^Talk 12:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Scope of interest

I served 5 years active duty in the US Army, and I'm interested in ethical issues. A chief tenet of Western ethics is not to hurt helpless people: like POWs; surrendering troops; women, children and other non-combatants. Of course, it gets messy when enemies use civilian labor (do you bomb the weapons factories?) or hide among civilians (No Gun Ri incident is still page protected).

In light of the huge worldwide protests over US treatment of enemy combatants from Afghanistan and Iraq - and the "barely a whimper" over Saddam's treatment of his own civilians (ears and tongues cut off, women raped, Kurds gassed, etc.) many readers likely be interested in a comparison and contrast between Western and Islamic perspectives on the laws of war or military ethics.

It seems everyone expects America to be 10 times better than anyone else, which is actually not hard because its enemies are many thousands of times worse! --Uncle Ed 20:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Guys, WIKI is neither a chat room nor a forum; if you have guilty conscience and want to discuss it, you better take it to a chat room or forum where people will be more than happy to answer you appropriately.

Thanks. Kiumars

-Kiumars you seemed like a fair and logical person at first, but reading this i've changed my mind. This man voiced his opinion on Western ethics and those of Afghanistan and Iraq, which you may disagree with. So you told him to take his feelings and comments elsewhere, understandably, the tone is quite ethnocentric and anti-islamic.

But then you implied that he committed war crimes with your "if you have guilty conscience" comment. That's not only incredibly insensitive, but bitter and mean-spirited. Qa Plar

I plead guilty to ethnocentrism, but I actually have nothing against Islam. I'm just as much opposed to Christian ethical violations as I am to Muslim ones.

But actually my comments were about the article. I would like to know more about Muslim ethics in general, as well as how Islam regards war. Like most Americans, I know nothing about concepts like jihad (it means Muslims kill anyone who won't convert?) but I feel I have a fairly good understanding of Islamic laws of hospitality: Muslims must not kill anyone had as a guest under their roof, provided food and drink.

How have modern Islamic states, such as Iraq and Iran, treated POWS such as downed American pilots? Better or worse than Americans treated uniformed POWs in either of the Gulf Wars? Or how about compared to Guantanamo? --Uncle Ed 00:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Howdie Ed.I think the big role that the US assumes in the World, particularly it's domination relative to other countries in the UN, has the World in response having high expectations of the US. It isn't necessarily a different perspective on what constitutes moral behavior. In Islamic rules of warfare, one isn't to take a life out of anger, and this is reflected in a tradition in which Ali (Muhammad's nephew) forced himself to refrain from killing a man whom he defeated in battle, simply because he realized that anger would motivate his action. Of course, Saddam isn't much of a Muslim. For whatever reason, there's an atmosphere of chaos and apathy in many of the Arab states. Maybe it's a vacuum left after European control, who knows. It's politics, not religion. His Excellency... 15:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Uncle Ed in june of 2004 eight british servicemen were arrested and held for a few days by the security services in Iran. He are some links that should give you the info you want. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3834723.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3855251.stm hope that helps you.Hypnosadist 14:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Hypnosadist. I read both web pages. Seems like a routine border incident, taking place in peacetime. The blindfold thing is technically a violation (Geneva Convention doesn't allow "display of prisoners" like that, right?) but otherwise the troops don't seem to have been mistreated.

Does Wikipedia have an article on border incidents or border incursions? --Uncle Ed 16:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I would not call it peacetime exactly, it was a very tense situation with us being "illegaly" in Iraq, could have gone pear shaped real quick and real nasty.Hypnosadist 17:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I meant peace between UK and Iran. --Uncle Ed 17:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello everyone. (You too Ed.) Ive volunteered to mediate for this article, but I see that Ed has jumped in and helped out. Im doing some background reading, and will chime in when I think I understand enough more. But my first impression of the general topic is that the problem seems to break down into familiar dualities/paradoxes:

• One, the common interest in establishing a common (international, global, universal) law, versus the local interest in maintaining local dominance.
• Two, the local (ie. Western culture) formulation, definition, and description of "common" law, versus a different local (Islamic culture) formulation, definition, and description of "common" law.

Note that the real difference between these is the difference in language and their relative differences in their concept of language expressiveness. The basic "human rights" disagreement itself, though influenced by religious concepts, does not appear to be religious in nature and instead seems to be simply an issue of translation. But if its simply an issue of how to include a particular formulation of the human rights concept, then there is no debate, as our doctrines are inclusive -- provided a sufficient context is applied. If there is disagreement with this, or with the basic concept of religion as belonging to particular local human beings, groups, and cultures and not the other way around (ie. all are charachters in some particular religious story), then those are differences with the community's policy itself, best discussed at wikien). I will try to catch up on discussion. -Ste|vertigo 21:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Which is the "lesser?"

In the lede, it says:

"The rules of war in Islam are the basic religious laws of war governing the military conduct of the mujahideen [those who engage in Islamic holy war–jihad ("struggle")]. These rules are part of a broader Islamic military doctrine encompassed by what some Muslims call "Lesser Jihad."

The text above appears to state that the "broader" doctrine is the "lesser." Forgive my ignorance of this custom, but, it seems that the "broader" concept should be the greater. In English, "broad" carries the connotation of being larger, more expansive, more relevant to more people and therefore more... great.

This text is also confusing in that as I understand the concept, "holy jihad" is a battle of spirit, and not one of hostility. The text seems to be referring to two concepts of military jihad and though it uses the term "holy", it does not seem to refer to the jihad of spirit. Is that correct? The concept of "lesser" seems to imply "one which is less holy," wheras the concept of "holy" is presumably the more important concept. The text is confusing, as it appears to refer to the "broader" as the "lesser," and to the lesser as the "holy." Can someone explain this in clearer terms? I think this would go a long way toward improving the article and clearing up the debate. -Ste|vertigo 18:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Vertigo, there are two types of jihad, "lesser" and "greater", both are holy to Muslims. Lesser concerns struggling/fighting/working in the physical world to make it better and Greater concerns the internal/mental/spiritual struggle to be better/more holy. Jihad translates best as struggle hence why I used it, and should show the meaning as best as possible. Hope that helps you. Hypnosadist 18:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

PS the lesser in the name indicated the more base physical world not a definite value judgement. The realm of the spirit being Greater, this I think caries over from Zoroastrianism.Hypnosadist 18:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Well that would clear things up - if that were in the lede, and if in fact that was the broadly accepted definition. Again were are in the language paradox here, where the use of "holy" to apply to both spiritual and material world struggles would seem to basically apply to 'anything anywhere as long as its struggling.' Im not sure thats the proper distinction, if matters of spirit are indeed regarded as "Greater" than matters of matter. Im not sure if we want to get into Zoroastrianism here - its complicated enough to try to deal with its historical influence on Judaism and Christianity. (!) Im off to read some more Mencken and maybe some Rumi. -Ste|vertigo 19:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Islam is the religion.

hello friends. I just want to inform you, that Islam wasnt always respected by Muslims. this topic explains how the war SHOULD be according to Islam (the religion). what actually happened or what the "Muslims" did is often totally different.

you think that the facts are different from what is said on this topic? then it's normal. there is indeed a huge difference between what have done the Muslims and what they should have done as Muslims.

think again, we are not talking about facts here, but about what the religion asks to do in such conditions. and it's pretty clear not?

This article is about what islam says should be the rules and it does that, it also provides the islamic reasons some muslims give to "get around" these rules. In fact new fatwas of Al-Qaeda that shia's are apostates and christians are no-longer people of the book because they believe in the Trinity and so are polytheists should also be noted.Hypnosadist 14:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I disagree, this article should be on the traditional Sunni and Shia Islamic fiqh of war, not what Muslims have done (which is usually not even claimed in the name of Islam - e.g. Saddam vs the Kurds or vs Iran), and not what a lone, fringe, and excommunicated sect (al-Qaida et al) say or do. That is a different article which possible belongs in al-Qaida or Takfiri. Using Al-Qaida etc in this article is like using the Branch_Davidians to describe christian views on a particular topic Aaliyah Stevens 14:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

excommunicated!!!!! i can't even comment on that statement without violating policy so i won't.Hypnosadist 14:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No that is not correct. This article is about what the scholars say about Islam and warfare. If an al-quida member is a scholar, they can be included. Same thing with scholarly critics of Islam. But only scholars.--Sefringle 21:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Female Slaves and Sex

it's ok now i have changed sex to marriage, it's written marriage in quran also not sex,some bastard have written. 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 04:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Nayan, you need to source any edits to secondary reliable sources. I will not remove the statement you inserted but will tag it. Please find a reliable secondary source that says this and add it soon.Bless sins 00:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Wiki policy says primary sources are acceptable as "descriptive", which is exactly what the sentence is. If you say "we don't use primary sources" you are setting your own standard, not Wiki's. If you tag the sentence you are challenging the primary source, which doesn't make sense as the link is provided. NN 01:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Nayan this is a true fact, though most people would naturally find it so shocking that they think it is vandalism/inaccurate as you did. Female prisoners of jihad can be enslaved as sex slaves and such acts of rape are not considered to be infidelity if one is married. Also the use of primary sources is one of the biggest arguments in the whole "islam" area on wikipedia, i support there much heavier use as most secondary sources are muslim theologians and as such biased.Hypnosadist 02:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hypnosadist thanks for agreeing with me. I can't understand Blessed sins position. The Wiki policy on primary sources says clearly "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge". It seems to me that the sentence I put in there was in complete conformity with this. If you believe I am correct you can revert the edit. Regards, NN 02:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Done, this is a very clear verse. Hypnosadist 02:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

PS this is likely to be reverted! Remember wp:3rr and that you have equal rights on here to make good faith reverts. Hypnosadist 02:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. I try to stay well within the 3RR. I find all kinds of inaccuracies or attempts to suppress truths. For example, though I am a huge admirer of the ancient Greeks, I am also currently engaged in trying to have a reference to Sparta as a "world power" removed. And a few editors over there think I must be Muslim! NN 02:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see this. The section says "The Bible cannot be used as a source for the claim that Jesus advocated eye removal (Matthew 18:9, Mark 9:47) for his followers, because theologians differ as to how these passages should be interpreted." Similarly any verse in the Quran can be interpreted in different ways. Thus please find a secondary source.Bless sins 15:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

We are not saying the Koran or Muhammad advocated anything. We are saying this is what the translations say. As the specific translations have been mentioned, it is proper use of primary sources. NN 15:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

What is the point of noting the translations? Ultimately the only reason we consider the translations is to note what the Quran actually says. In any case, if your argument that Islam justifies rape etc. is valid, why are you haivng such a hard time finding a scholar that explicitly says this?Bless sins 15:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The reason we are not looking for secondary sources is because we are not interested in interpretations of the Koran. We are interested in what the actual Koran says, which is fine by Wiki's policy of using primary sources as long as it is descriptive. If you wish to add interpretations from secondary sources, that is fine, but do not remove material from primary sources that are consistent with Wiki policy. NN 16:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If wish to quote the Quran then we must do that exactly. Quote it verbatim. In any case can you show that this verse is indeed related to prisoners of war and military jurispudence. I have already given to you the bible example. We can't interpret the verse of the Quran. It is OR.Bless sins 14:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins don't be silly you know as well as i that anyone who says the the truth about islam is islamophobic. Hypnosadist 19:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Think about what you just said. We should talk again after you adopt a more civil behaviour geared towards solving the problem instead of creating more.Bless sins 14:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No, the Wiki policy on primary sources does not say it has to be verbatim. Check for yourself if you like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:OR#Primary_and_secondary_sources . What it needs to be is accurate. If a primary source says "John looked up and saw a blue sky" I can write it as "John saw a blue sky on looking up". This is fine though not verbatim. If I write "John saw a red sky on looking up" that would be a wrong use of a primary source. So only way in which you can challenge my use of a primary source is if I describe it to be something it is not. As I refer to 3 translations, I am naturally going to write it once what they report, rather than repeating myself 3 times. Accept the truth, the Koran is being reported accurately. If you cannot accept the truth, then I cannot help you. NN 20:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll repeat myself: look at the bible example wikipedia gives. Your edits are clearly violating the message conveyed by that example.Bless sins 22:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Just your saying so doesn't prove anything. If you offer objective proof and explanation of how my edits "are clearly violating the message" then I will agree with you. NN 23:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

(Matthew 18:9, Mark 9:47) is a metaphor, thats why its used as an example of when you can't use a primary source. If you don't know the bible you probably don't know why that particular verse was picked Bless sins. Hypnosadist 00:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll repeat "The Bible cannot be used as a source for the claim that Jesus advocated eye removal (Matthew 18:9, Mark 9:47) for his followers, because theologians differ as to how these passages should be interpreted." Thus the Quran cannot be used as a source for the claim that Islam advocates sex with prisoners (...), because theologians differ as to how these passages should be interpreted.

To Hypnosadist: the Quranic verses in question are also possibly a metaphor. You need to show with RS that these verses are taken literally in Islam and not otherwise.Bless sins 22:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Its patently not a metaphor its a list of whom it is legal for the prophet to wed and how many, the end of the verse talks about whom the believers may have as their wives. Here's the quote below;

033.050 YUSUFALI: O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess;- in order that there should be no difficulty for thee. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Bless sins find me one source (not even up to full wikistandards) that says this a metaphor not a legal tract writen in plain arabic. Hypnosadist 00:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The beauty of wiki policy is that I don't have to find you anything. On the contrary, you are under the burden to provide sources to support your POV. WP:ATT: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material."Bless sins 05:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins your bad faith use of wikipolicies is very boring now, you know its not a metaphor and i'm not going to waste my time even looking for sources that say that. Hypnosadist 09:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, you're required to abide by wiki policies regardless of my faith. Since you make it clear that you are not about to provide sources, then I shall remove your claims.Bless sins 02:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins wrote "You need to show with RS that these verses are taken literally in Islam and not otherwise." WRONG. The text does not say that "Koran says this, and this it is taken literally". The text only says "Koran says this". If you wish you can add text saying that the "Koran is not taken literally" provided you have references saying so. Of course there are enough Muslim clerics who believe that is a cop out, and the Koran should be taken literally. NN 04:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I once again point you to the bible reference used in WP. You need a reliable source to show how Muslim interpret this verse.Bless sins 04:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

And once again I repeat to you, the text is not about "how Muslims interpret this verse". The text is an accurate description of what the translations say, so it is permitted under Wiki policy. The text is not about "how Muslims interpret the verse". NN 04:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is. Your statement reads "It is lawful to have extramarital sex with those "that your right hand possess" (women captives) according to the translations of the Quran ". THus you are saying that the Quran says it is lawful... You need secondary sources for that.Bless sins 04:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying the "Quran says it is lawful". I am saying "translations of the Quran by x, y and z says it is lawful". That is a descriptive statement. NN 04:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

When I first read this paragraph about "sex with captives" I wondered what this has to do with "jurisprudence". Anyway, as a jurist and one of the main editors of the law article, who wrote almost entirely the part about islamic law, I was intrigued by the whole issue, and tried to look at some sources. One book I found in Googlebook and looks very interesting is "The Position of Women in Islam" by Mohammad Ali Syed. In page 35 I read, "Abdullah Yusuf Ali (1946) says that 'those whom your right hand possesses' refers to captives of religious war, or wars led by righty-guided leaders against the persecutors of faith. This is why, pines Yusuf Ali, the previous marriage of these female captives are dissolved and they become eligible for marriage with their Muslim captors. Yusuf Ali's opinion on this matter is supported by 4:24".
According to the above analysis by a secondary source, and the explaining Yusuf gives to his own translation, I think that it is inaccurate just to say that "Islam allows extra-marital sex with captives according to translations of Quran ..." etc. The editor of this section should clarify that according to (at least some these) translators, the marriage of these captives is regarded by Islam as dissolved (and the relation is not regarded as extra-marital) and, that is why sex is allowed. Otherwise, the "legal" (if we accept that there is a legal aspect) analysis is incomplete and inaccurate. This further explanation is thus IMO necessary, and, since interest in this issue has been expressed by NN who laudably tried to analyse the whole issue, it would be also nice if the same editor could try to make the relevant section a bit less stubby. Its current status is encyclopedically "ugly".

Hence, my opinion is: a) cite secondary sources as I did (it is not that difficult to find them, you know - research in Google Book is a convenience), b) don't rely only on the vague argument "trnslations of Quran", c) provide further explanation of this expert, d) clarify that for Islamic religion marriage of captive women is regarded as dissolved - otherwise the current reference is IMO incomplete, lacking the necessary scholar backing, and possibly one-sided not quoting the Islamic interpretation of the whole matter.--Yannismarou 09:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What you say about "extramarital" is true. I stand corrected and am changing the article accordingly. Islam indeed regards the previous marriage dissolved. A more accurate way would be to say that Islam regards the previous marriage dissolved, but with or without the woman's consent. That is it enables the man to avoid having sex to a woman not married to him (which no doubt Islam regards as a sin) by saying she is no longer married, but her consent in this is not material. I believe in matters of sex it is always important to discuss whether it has the woman's consent or not. To say otherwise is to say that rape is not a crime.

I also agree that "sex" is blunt, maybe "sexual intercourse" is more suitable. NN 14:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

As for primary and secondary sources, there are a few issues. While the primary sources are few in number (translations) the secondary sources are numerous. If all secondary sources are to be given then the article would become huge. Hence summarizing of secondary sources is necessary and opens much argument about whether they are accurate or not. Primary sources as long described accurately seem to serve a useful purpose. So I would say that an informative article would rely on both primary and secondary sources. It is useful to tell the reader what X, Y and Z think the Koran means. It is also useful to tell him/her what the Koran actually says. I understand that many editors (particularly those sympathetic to Islam) believe that the only proper way to look at the Koran is through the interpretations of "scholars", but I do not agree with that, nor is that required by Wiki policy. NN 14:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that these changes are to the correct direction, and it is nice to see such a rational attitude by editors in Wikipedia. I also hope that those involved this section will improve it, by researching, and then expanding it, properly citing it, and "washing" it from its current stubbiness (it would be nice to know, for instance, why such relations are not regarded as "extra-marital" by the Islamic religion, and it would be nice to have this explanation in the section in question). I hope that those interested in the improvement of this section and, of course, of the whole article will proceed to these encyclopedically necessary additions.--Yannismarou 14:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Yannismarou, I appreciate your enabling me to correct the error I made about "extramarital". I had mistakenly thought the word to mean "between those not married" rather than the correct "between those married to others". NN 15:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It may be a good thing to break up articles on Islam into two parts: 1) Primary Sources: This is what the Koran says according to translations 2) Secondary Sources: This is the meaning of the Koran according to "scholars", "theologians", "experts" etc. Surely both provide information to the reader and are allowed by Wiki policy. Also the reason I included "translations of Koran" in the text was to clearly identify which primary source was being used, so that there would be no controversy or allegations that I was offering my personal interpretations. NN 15:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

NN, the article is fine as it is. I see you still have not provided any secondary soruces per wiki policy. As time passes by, I am getting more and more convinced that perhaps you don't have a secondary source for the POV you are imposing. Please insert your statements only after finding a source.Bless sins 19:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

For some reason you seem to believe that according to Wiki policy secondary sources ONLY are acceptable, primary sources are not. Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:OR#Primary_and_secondary_sources. It says "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge". So what exactly is your problem with my edits? NN 21:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

For the nth time, look at the Bible example! You can't use a religious scripture to further a POV. You may definetly use a secondary source to do that. The fact that you can't find a secondary source that furthers the POV you are trying to insert, means that not too many people agree with you.Bless sins 19:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Its an F'n metaphor thats why that verse is used, aaargggh! There is no need for secondary sources for a clear list of who the prophet(1st list) and his followers(2nd list) can marry. One is a list of legally defined states of being such as Ma malakat aymanukum and the other is a discriptive metaphor that most (but not all) scholars agree is not allowing sin to go on in front of you, as opposed to the schizophrenic's who often (and i do mean that) rip thier own eyes out because they have seen a sinful act. Hypnosadist 12:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

1) You vulgar language violates WP:CIVIL. 2) Please find RS that say that the bible verse is a metaphor, but the quran verse isn't, and can be quoted without nay theological interpretation. Until then the quote stays out.Bless sins 22:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Help me out here. "Jurispridence" implies a judicial assessment, does it not? Why exactly are we excluding such assessments from this section? Would we really insist that only English-language Bible verses be cited to explain technical points at, say, College of Cardinals? BYT 00:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Your question needs to be viewed in context. Maybe before your question is answered you could answer why you persistently delete descriptive material from primary sources, i.e. translations of the Koran. NN 03:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Persistently? I think I've made two three edits on this section.

You may view Marmaduke Pickthall's translation of the Qur'an as a primary source, but no qualified Islamic scholar on the face of the earth does.

Howsabout we quote (translations of) the Qur'an in addition to actual jurisprudence -- which is, I believe, the stated topic of the article? BYT 12:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you. Using the Quran in addition to reliable secondary sources woiuld be good.Bless sins 20:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. Both primary and secondary sources are useful sources for creating an article that gives an accurate picture to the reader. NN 07:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)