Talk:Islamic military jurisprudence/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

The first part of the review (Lead and the first 3 sections):

Per WP:LEAD the lead of the article of such length should be longer: 3-4 paragraphs.
Injunctions relating to jihad have been characterized as individual as well as collective duties of the Muslim community This is a strange sentence. Injunctions per ser are not duties, they are just injunctions. Though their execution or implementation may be a duty.
Shaheen Sardar Ali and Javaid Rehman. These two experts appear suddenly from nowhere. I think readers will be interested to know who they are.
Per WP:MOS you should use either spaced ndash or unspaced mdash, but not spaced mdash.
You use {{cquote}} template for the first quote in 'Ethics of warfare' section and {{quote}} for the rest of quotes. Is it really necessary? I think it is better to use uniform format for quotes.
In addition, during the Battle of Siffin, the Caliph Ali stated that Islam does not permit Muslims to stop the supply of water to their enemy.[12] In addition to the Rashidun Caliphs, hadiths attributed to Muhammad himself suggest that he stated the following regarding the Muslim conquest of Egypt 'In addition' is used twice in two successive sentences.
Muslim jurists agree that Muslim armed forces must consist of debt-free adults So Muslim soldiers can be both male and female? Is there any difference between men and women in the Islamic military jurisprudence?

I will continue my review of the article tomorrow. Ruslik (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The second part ('Legitimacy of war' and the beginning of 'International conflict' sections):

Some scholars argue that war may only be legitimate if Muslims have at least half the power of the enemy (and thus capable of winning it) Does this apply to defensive wars as well? This sounds strange to me.
The third paragraph of 'Offensive conflict' subsection contradicts the first two paragraphs. Please, clarify how jihad against unbelievers relates to The only valid basis for military jihad is to end oppression when all other measures have failed. Or if opinions of different scholars contradict each other, please, explain why.
Moreover, the offensive jihad points more to the complex relationship with the "People of the book" than their conversion Please, clarify this sentence. I do not understand what it means.
Why do Sunni and Shia jurists have different opinions about the declaration of war? ('Declaration of war' subsection) Please, provide historical context for this difference, and explain to readers why the same verses of the Qur'an are interpreted differently.
The Quran discourages Muslim combatants from displaying pomp and unnecessary boasting when setting out for battle I think this stubby subsection should be merged with the following 'In combat' subsubsection.

This was the second part of my review. I will continue tomorrow. Ruslik (talk) 14:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The last part of my review:

no explicit injunctions against use of chemical or biological warfare were developed by medieval Islamic jurists as these threats were not recognized Rather vague. Such weapons simply did not exist in Middle Ages. That is why no rules for their application were developed.
If, however, non-Muslims commit acts of aggression So what to do if Muslims commit acts of aggression?
The second paragraph in the 'Ceasefire' subsection is actually not related to ceasefire. It discusses general concepts of when an aggressive war is permitted. The meaning of some sentences is not clear (see below). The paragraph should be rewritten and some material should be moved to other sections.
Crone states that this verse seems to be based on the same above-mentioned rules Which rules?
Ibn Kathir states that the verse implies a hasty mission of besieging and gathering intelligence about the enemy, resulting in either death or repentance by the enemy. Can you clarify how 'gathering intelligence' relates to ceasefire and to war in general?
However, if read as a continuation of previous verses, Which verses?
Please, add a citation to the first paragraph in 'Prisoners of War' subsection.
Classical jurists, however, laid down severe penalties Please, clarify who are classical jurists.
The article in general is confused about wars between Muslims. They are sometimes treated as international conflicts and sometimes as internal. This should be clarified if possible.

The sources generally look good. I will wait another couple of days. If the author does not respond I will fail the article. Ruslik (talk) 08:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC) Since there is no response from the author I will fail the article. Ruslik (talk) 09:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]