Talk:Ma malakat aymanukum

Germen's edits

Germen, I see the point you are trying to make... and I do agree that many people have different views on this issue that should be mentioned, however, the way you went about it is not sound. I see no reason to believe that what Mustaafa put was definitely not the traditional view. It is your point that it is not traditional (and I don't believe he makes claims that it is traditional - not sure). Therefore, adding blank sections claiming that his view is different from the traditional view is just trying to discredit his work unjustly. Now, if you can find me a citation that Hanafi, Malik, Shaafi or Hanbali are markedly different then you will have a good leg to stand on, however you have not. As far as I can tell you believe that his interpretation is "Islamophilic", as you might use, and want to show the traditional view to show what Islam is more like... So, by all means research and show us good sources, I would have no problem with that... and we do need Shia / modern liberal / traditional / etc. views to make this article better, however, you didn't really further that goal with your edits. gren 12:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Gren, of course I welcome changes in harsh elements of islamic theology and I wish Mustafaa all the best in achieving this. As you can read in my comments and the fact that I do mention the source of Mustafaa's work. The fact is, nevertheless, that the vast majority of all Sunni and Shi'a scholars is following the traditional interpretation. This should change of course and the way is confronting the Muslims with their scholars stupidity and cruelty, e.g. by contrasting the Quran-only view by the traditional view. It should be clear that Mustafaa's view is the most rational interpretation, but that traditionalists do not follow it.

--Germen 12:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) PS: quote from Malik: Maliks Muwatta, Book 31, Number 31.2.2:

Yahya related to me from Malik from Nafi from Abdullah ibn Umar that Umar ibn al-Khattab said, "If a slave who has wealth is sold, that wealth belongs to the seller unless the buyer stipulates its inclusion."

Malik said, "The generally agreed upon way of doing things among us is that if the buyer stipulates the inclusion of the slave's property whether it be cash, debts, or goods of known or unknown value, then they belong to the buyer, even if the slave possesses more than that for which he was purchased, whether he was bought for cash, as payment for a debt, or in exchange for goods. This is possible because a master is not asked to pay zakat on his slave's property. If a slave has a slave-girl, it is halal for him to have intercourse with her by his right of possession. If a slave is freed or put under contract (kitaba) to purchase his freedom, then his property goes with him. If he becomes bankrupt, his creditors take his property and his master is not liable for any of his debts."

I'm not sure that makes the distinction between Ma malakat aymanukum and normal slave... This is a rather traditional (as opposed to historical) view as you have shown. Mustaafa's writing, is not like free-minds... it draws some parellels but... it is different and not a Qur'an view rejection of traditionalism as you make it out to be. My problem is there has been a plethora of viewpoints (and Malik is known to be strict interpretations, there are many other historical authors that should be explored) and you seem to make Mustaafa's content out to be complete revisionism which it isn't from my understanding... I am wary of your edits... but I'm sure Mustaafa will look at them and have his say. gren 13:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fascinating quote - who'd have thought that slaves were allowed to have slaves themselves? However, it doesn't even use the term ma malakat aymanukum. Any edits should be sourced (as all of mine are in this article), and a good start would be providing some sort of documentation for the claim that the rather unusual term ma malakat aymanukum was used in fiqh outside of Qur'anic quotes. I am aware that jurists and commentators traditionally equate the term to various commoner and shorter words like "captive" or "slave-girl", but that doesn't mean they use it themselves. This article is about the word and its usage, not about the general issue of slavery in Islam. - Mustafaa 19:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, good point. I have added some fatwa's in which 'ma malakat amaynukum' both is interpreted and used. Please convince your pal Yuber to stop his endless unmotivated vandalistic reverts. Germen 09:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To avoid constant reverting... To me it seems rather apparent that Germen wants to portray Islam as historically something the modern man would find detestable. Granted, there are definitely some aspects in some places that would, however I am not exactly sure I think the great emphasis on the difference between "traditional" and "objections to traditiona" that he adds is quite warranted. I do think that some of the external links he has placed should remain even if under different headings. I do agree with Mustaafa that the dichotomy of traditional / objections to traditional is not as much well cited as it is how he thinks the issue goes. So discuss what you think should be the version so maybe this page won't have to be protected as well. gren 12:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gren and Mustafaa, this not true in general. Traditional islam as in its Sunni and Shi'a incarnations is quite detestible in my eyes but there exist reform movements such as Quran-only islam, Ahmadiyya and Sufi which have my warm sympathy.

I know especially the Ahmadiyya and Quran-only gruops such as the Submitters are fierce opponents from the slavery concept on Quranic grounds. In this article I saw that the same was held for mainstream Sunni and Shi'a islam. I wish this was true. Only by addressing this issue the reform movement within mainstream islam will increase in strength. --Germen 13:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You finally got around to addressing the talk page, for which I congratulate you. However, all you did was add links which are certainly relevant, but don't actually corroborate your edits. - Mustafaa 19:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Germen, I think there are a few problems with your view of traditional vs. reform. Firstly, Sufism was around from very very early period of Islam and has so many different incarnations (al-Ghazali was very traditionalist, as we think of the term, with strong ties to sufism) that I don't think we can really differentiate it from traditional in some aspects. There was a lot of exchange. Also, Sunnism and Shiism have great variations within them, and truly have throughout history. It's also hard to make the Sunni distinction in a non-pejorative manner. Muslims tend to call the Mu'tazlite a cult out of the realm of ordinary Islam, but, they were the main group during a point of time under the Abbassid court. There has also been much evolution in thought in Islam like there was in Christianity and because some Anglicans supported slavery (I assume some did) doesn't mean that the modern "traditional Anglican" supports slavery. Same goes for this issue. And, as Mustafaa said, you have not corroborated your edits with sources. So, try to find some sources and then bring them to the table so they can be looked at. gren 20:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let me just clarify a few points:

• Traditional Islam (by which I mean the 5 madhhabs) does not "support" slavery; rather, it unanimously considers the liberation of slaves as a praiseworthy act, following many verses in the Qur'an.

support is a loose translation of mustabb: not recommented, not forbidden, the middle category of five levels of behaviour: obligatory, recommended, neutral, warned against and forbidden.

http://www.islamonline.net/english/Contemporary/2005/06/Article01.shtml --Germen 5 July 2005 12:49 (UTC)

• Traditional Islam unanimously does recognize slavery as a legitimate practice in some circumstances. This has some limited Qur'anic precedent (insofar as the verses urging the voluntary liberation of slaves presume the prior existence of slavery.)

That is exactly my point. Additionally, traditional islam does approve of enslaving captured kafirs, see my reference to fatwa's of Al-Islaam.org --Germen 5 July 2005 12:49 (UTC)

• Traditional Islam interprets the term ma malakat aymanukum as referring to people captured in legitimate wars and enslaved. (This is the first of these points with specific relevance to this article, I should note.)

Indeed. Your POV differs from traditional islam, so I think it is a good idea to make this clear. --Germen 5 July 2005 12:49 (UTC)

My POV plays no part in this article. - Mustafaa 13:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)`

'Be that as may'?

• Based on this interpretation, they regard the verses in the Qur'an cited here as, among other things, legitimizing sex with slaves. They support this claim with precedents in the actions of Muhammad and of the earliest Muslims. They certainly do not regard these verses as contradicting their position, though others, as noted, disagree.

As you pointed out in your Quran-based analysis, they made some errors. --Germen 5 July 2005 12:49 (UTC)

As I pointed out where? - Mustafaa 13:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

You said, "be that as may", which implies a silent criticism on the traditional interpretation. --Germen 17:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

"Be that as it may" expresses neutrality in the face of two different interpretations, not a "silent criticism" of either. - Mustafaa

• And finally, most Muslim scholars agree that slavery is legitimate in some circumstances, while claiming that it is not legitimitate in modern times, now that people are rich enough to afford such measures as POW camps. IslamOnline is representative of the modern traditionalists' view. - Mustafaa 22:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Many poor Muslim countries, like Sudan and Mauritania, cannot afford POW camps. According to this fatwa, it seems keeping slaves is thus legitimate in this countries. --Germen 5 July 2005 12:49 (UTC)

They can afford POW camps (not that Mauritania has any wars to be involved in anyway.) Even the poorest countries today are richer than all but the very richest countries of a millennium ago. - Mustafaa 12:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Ehm... did you hear about any POW camp of rich islamic states in the past? And if we are looking to nutritional status of Sudan and Mauritania, those countries cannot be considered very rich, even not in a historic context.--Germen 17:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Sure, but you have to come up with an idea first - and get your enemies to reciprocate. Wealth is a necessary condition to end the enslavement of captives, but not a sufficient one. - Mustafaa 23:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

"Shi'a muslims have suggested to equate 'those whose one right hand possesses' with Muta marriage partners"? This sounds plausible, but as always, can you please provide a source first? - Mustafaa 4 July 2005 17:02 (UTC)

I was not able to find a source. --Germen 5 July 2005 12:58 (UTC)

So don't put it in, then. - Mustafaa 5 July 2005 19:11 (UTC)

OK. --Germen 17:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

used most often with reference to women?

The term is used 14 times in the Qur'an , on what basis it is claimed that it is "used most often in reference to women"?

lets count the verses mentioned the article : An-Nur 30-33, in the course of laying down the familiar dress code of Islam, explains that women "should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty" except to various familiar people, including those "whom their right hands possess". Al-Ahzab 55 makes it explicit that the same liberty is given to the Prophet's wives. 2 references , male

an-Nur 58 says that "those whom your right hands possess" and underage children should ask a believer's permission (before they come to their presence) at the three times of day when one is likely to be undressed. neutral , suggestive of male because female slaves were permitted to see all of the body of their male master , but male slaves were not permitted to see the body of their female or female master

The behavior of the fortunate towards them is a metaphor for God's towards man. an-Nahl 71 and ar-Rum 28 both use the same metaphor 2 references neutral

An-Nisa 36 reminds us that a believer should do good to a variety of people, including "what your right hands possess" neutral

Verse 24:33 of the Qur'an states "...if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which Allah has given to you." neutral

So at least 7 times it is not specificly refering to women.In fact ma malakat aymanukum is an Islamic term meaning "slave" regardless of gender.More precisely it referes to slaves that are considered by the Qur'an as such.Pasha 06:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Minor point. I changed 'ode's' to 'one's' Jim

Merge with Islam and Slavery

This article lacks secondary sources and it can be accommodated in Islam and Slavery. TruthSpreader^Talk 15:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The term in it self is notable. Merge some content if needed, but keep the article as a term article. --Striver 19:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

can we merge its contents then redirect it (i mean the term) to the section that contains its contents?--Truthpedia 16:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

the layout of this article is currently rather messy. i would really like it if we could organise the article into a single coherent (sourced) prose before merging it... ITAQALLAH 16:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

As i stated, i view that this term warants an article. However, i do not realy care how much content is there, as long as the term itself is properly covered. --Striver 01:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Striver the term is quite notable in Islam, no merge for me--Khalid hassani 20:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing the merge template. --Striver 16:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

headings make the article tricky to read

because the word "they" keeps on swapping in meaning from the believer to instead "what your right hands possess" and then back again etc... Could somebody change them so they are consistent throughout the article? cheers! Mathmo 16:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Ma malakat aymanukum as a Concubinage concept

Ma malakat aymanukum: "If the female captives are not ransomed or killed or set free, then they are allocated to soldiers as concubines." Yamin Zakaria, Al-Jazeerah article [1] amd the original [2].

Please let us stay sensible and edit in good faith. I'm not here to bash islam, but will expose certain problems when I identify them

FrummerThanThou 06:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If the female captives are not ransomed or killed or set free, then they are allocated to soldiers as concubines. This also depends on the actual international situation, how the enemies are behaving with the Islamic State and how they are treating Muslim prisoners. In the case that the women prisoners are distributed as concubines there are very clear and detailed rules regarding how they should be treated, definitely not left to the whims of the soldiers to do as they please. What commentators need to realize is that in Islam a captive woman as a concubine, has essentially same legal rights as a wife

The reservation "definitely not left to the" voids the unqualified equation to concubinage. Ill give you a while to correct the misinformation introduced. If it is not corrected, i will revert it. --Striver 10:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

please read "as a concubine". nuff said. FrummerThanThou 18:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Total Rewrite

I am at loss for words, I think me and you should start cooperating a little more Striver, I'm sorry but there are major probs with the way this article is evolving. FrummerThanThou 18:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Bro, i don't mean to be counterproductive, but i have a serious issue with how you formulate the text. I get the impression that you want to insert the "concubine" all over the place, a term that i feel is misleading and objectionable, specially when it is not qualified. I am not telling this to accuse you of something, i am telling you how i feel. --Striver 18:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, i only ment to put it in once. About copyediting, you can trust me to copyedit without twisting meanings, you can revert terms i put in or leave out, but in the general when i copyedit and say so in the edit summary, take me for it. FrummerThanThou 21:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ill try to be more cooperative with you, maybe it's past experiences that made me being defensive. In that case, sorry. --Striver 15:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Ma malakat aymanukum and sex

Why was most of the content regarding "Ma malakat aymanukum and sex" moved into it's own article? Even with the content from that new article included, this article is still quite shot, when compared to many other articles. -- Karl Meier 20:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The section was receiving Undue weight. A section unbalancing the article can according to policy (or was it guidline?) be split out. --Striver 15:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The "They should not be forced into prostitution if they desire chastity" section belongs to Ma malakat aymanukum and sex and is thus moved there. --Striver 23:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Traditional Sunni and Shia viewpoint

Please provide the exact quote here. Arrow740 06:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

re:[3]

ma malakat aymanukum does not refer exclusively to female captives. it refers to female slaves in general. "No mention has been made requiring the women captives to consent to the sex.", is original research. "Historically, children of such women could also become slaves", is a misrepresentation of Schimmel. she comments, as does the Encyclopedia of Islam, that attainment of slaves was restricted to two instances. i think you have assumed that this means that all children of female captives/slaves will also be slaves. not quite: for if it is the master has intercourse with the captive/slave, then any children that result are free by default. the only instance in which a slave's children will also be slaves is when the father is not the master (e.g. another slave). as such, i have removed the last two sentences. ITAQALLAH 17:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Primary Source

The use of primary sources are okay according to Wiki policy as long they are used for description. That is what the text does, it describes what the primary sources (translations) say. Please do not change the text on the basis that it is a primary source. NN 04:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

you did not respond to my comments above concerning this, nor the baseless specification to captives only, nor the misrepresentation of Schimmel. yes, primary sources may be used to make extremely obvious positive inferences, we cannot use them to make negative inferences (meaning, we represent what it does say, not muse about what it doesn't say). i'm sure there are 1001 things we could invent as to what this verse does not mention. ITAQALLAH 05:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course if a primary source does not say something, it does not say it. There are indeed 1001 things that a primary source may not say, however the 1 thing being mentioned is the 1 that concerns sex with women captives, which is what the section is about. If you believe this is inaccurate and the primary source indeed says that the consent of the women is needed, so tell us where and it will be corrected. Which comments of yours did I not respond to? NN 05:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

right above, dated 10th March. why is it relevant if no mention is made in this particular verse? what exactly does it mean? there are plenty of things, related to Islam and concubinage, not specified in this verse. currently it just looks like original research intended to forward a specific point of view. we use primary sources to make positive inferences, not otherwise. ITAQALLAH

If there are things not mentioned about "Islam and concubinage" that you would like to include, you are welcome to. If the text provides an accurate description of the primary source, it is okay. Sex and consent of the woman are intrinsic to each other. To say otherwise is to say that there isn't much difference between consensual sex and rape. Also "concubinage" may not be the best term to describe women captives. NN 05:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

please respond to my above comments. ma malakat aymanakum does not refer exclusively to captives. i am to remove the patent original research and misrepresentation of Schimmel. we relate what the primary source asserts, not what it doesn't assert. ITAQALLAH 06:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to make a distinction between female captives and female slaves that is fine with me. The description of the primary source is accurate. NN 06:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

as i stated: we relate what the primary source say, not what they don't say. ITAQALLAH 06:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be verbatim, it does have to be accurate. NN 06:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

our usage of primary sources is restricted to describing what the source says. anything else, you'll need a secondary source. see WP:OR and WP:V. ITAQALLAH 06:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It needs to be an accurate description of the primary source that can be verified by looking at the primary source. NN 06:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that religious texts have many contested meanings and therefore just because you think some ruling obviously flows from Qur'an doesn't mean it is proper. I would definitely say that saying "In these translations no mention has been made requiring the women captives to consent to the sex." is very problematic. It's leading the reader to certain conclusions which may or may not be scholarly interpretation. You're also presenting Qur'an as Islamic law which is far from the case--rulings are filtered through processes which throughout most of Islamic history has been fiqh. That's why it's problematic to just interpret primary sources yourself... because interpretation is such a political endeavor a whole system arose around it. gren グレン 07:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

"Scholarly interpretation" has no special place in Wiki as far as I know, if it does please provide the link. Also how is it defined?

"You're also presenting Qur'an as Islamic law". No. What made you think that? If it was the use of the word "lawful" then note that it comes from the translations, it is not my interpretation.

"it's problematic to just interpret primary sources yourself" Again no, I am not interpreting primary sources. I am describing them.

NN 07:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Description can be a matter of interpretation. In this edit you state that it doesn't mention consent. That is problematic because it is leading the reader to the conclusion that consent is not needed. Now, if you have a scholarly source that mentions consent not being necessary then that is important. However, using the negative to imply that consent isn't needed because it's not specifically mentioned is not a proper way to use primary sources. By scholarly interpretation I mean reliable secondary sources which have assess what ma malakat aymanukum has meant in Islam and explains it, rather than us trying to explain what it means in light of Qur'an and hadith. I state you were presenting the Qur'an as Islamic law because the implication of your edit is that something is allowed because the Qur'an doesn't disallow it in that section. While you may be innocently doing this... you must understand that it is original research to present 'fact' in a way that leads the reader to certain conclusions. gren グレン 07:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Gren said "It's leading the reader to certain conclusions which may or may not be scholarly interpretation." What the reader may or may not conclude is beyond our means to know. Can you cite any Wiki policy that mentions reader's conclusions? If reader's conclusions are to be the basis, we promptly lose all objectivity. I can start claiming everything you say is leading the reader to a false conclusion. That is why use of primary sources is allowed and encouraged, as long as the use is descriptive. It is an objective standard. NN 16:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It says right in the same place you're citing, [[WP:RS#Primary_and_secondary_sources]. "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". This is an analogous situation. Muslim theologians do greatly differ therefore we cannot present the Qur'an as a straightforward reality. As they say it is easy to "misuse primary sources". gren グレン 08:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Schimmel

I reverted that phrase which attempts to interpret primary sources... but I'm not sure of the "misrepresentation" of Schimmel that Itaqallah talks about. Can someone explain? gren グレン 07:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Schimmel states:

"Only children of slaves or non-Muslim prisoners of war can become slaves, never a freeborn Muslim; therefore slavery is theoretically doomed to disappear with the expansion of Islam" p. 67

as i explained above, Schimmel is saying how enslavement was restricted to two instances: being born a slave from slave parents; and as a prisoner of war. Schimmel doesn't assert that the "children of such women [i.e. prisoners of war, in the context is was previously presented] could also become slaves", - meaning, children of the enslaved prisoners of war as a result of intercourse with the master. that is because as the EoI and other publications state: the children resulting from intercourse between the master and his slave are born free. the instances when a child of a slave does become a slave, is when the father is not the master, and this scenario is not relevant to ma malakat aymanukum. ITAQALLAH 07:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

What you are saying sounds reasonable according to the source. NN, please explain why your sentence works... is there something on the page that Itaqallah didn't mention? gren グレン 07:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing for me to explain. I am quoting a primary source. It is not my interpretation. It is a description. You can read the source, it is easy to get to. Here is the relevant Wiki policy about primary sources yet one more time "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge". These translations are in English, they can be checked by any who can read English. It does not need "specialist knowledge", it only needs an ability to read English. I don't understand why this simple point does not get through, I have said it a dozen times by now. I will be traveling for the next few weeks. I hope Wiki policy about primary sources is understood. Primary sources are not disallowed. What is disallowed is making inferences based on primary sources. NN 08:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

just for the sense of completion, here is everything Schimmel says on the topic of slavery:

"Slavery was not abolished by the Koran, but believers are constantly admonished to treat their slaves well. In case of illness a slave has to be looked after and well cared for. To manumit a slave is highly meritorious; the slave can ransom himself by paying some of the money while conducting his own business. Only children of slaves or non-Muslim prisoners of war can become slaves, never a freeborn Muslim; therefore slavery is theoretically doomed to disappear with the expansion of Islam. The entire history of Islam proves that slaves could occupy any office, and many former military slaves, usually recruited from among the Central Asian Turks, became military leaders and often even rulers as in eastern Iran, India (the Slave Dynasty of Delhi), and medieval Egypt (the Mamluks). Eunuchs too served in important capacities, not only as the guardians of the women's quarters, but also in high administrative and military positions."

-ITAQALLAH 08:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Citation

11th page of 'Abd in eois. Arrow740 23:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

could you quote the passage please.. ITAQALLAH 23:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I already quoted it in greater length in the other article, I thought you were aware of it.

The concubine who has born a child is not automatically freed on her master's death unless her child is still alive; her value is then deducted this child's share of the inheritance.

It appears to be referring to Shia only, however. I'll note that in both places. Arrow740 01:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

yes.. i was thinking that may have been so. ITAQALLAH 11:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: "female captive consent to sex" section

===Female Captive's Consent to Sex=== There is no mention in the Qu'ran for the master to require consent of the female captive for sex.<small>[http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran]</small>

First of all, this contradicts the other part of the article which says:

===They cannot be forced into prostitution if they desire chastity=== [[An-Nur]] 24:33 states, "But force not your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is Allah, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them),"

And second, the source is pointless, as it is just a link to an online Quran. How will that help someone verify the (obviously OR) claim? WP:SOURCE states that primary sources can only be used to make descriptive claims. But this isn't a descriptive claim, because unlike all the other citations, it says something isn't in there. How can the Quran say that something isn't in it? It can't. That's the whole point. It's OR.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 16:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

all editors seem to be in agreement that these types of negative derivations are totally inappropriate. we represent what the source says, not what it doesn't say. it seems to be just one editor who is determined to act in violation of WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and other associated policies. ITAQALLAH 16:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, "all editors" are not in agreement. It is a description and hence a proper use of a primary source. How will the link to the online Koran help the reader? Try reading it. NN 05:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

descriptions can be original research. you are misrepresenting a primary source through negative deduction. please cease this disruption. thank you. ITAQALLAH 15:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It is an accurate description and not a misrepresentation. Thanks also, NN 18:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you prove it? Please show me every single verse in the Qur'an, and then show me that they don't say that consent is required. And then explain to me how that isn't original research.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 20:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem, the link to the Koran is provided. There indeed is no verse saying consent is required. NN 07:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

"It is an accurate description and not a misrepresentation", that is your subjective conclusion, and it is still original research and a total misuse of the source to forward a POV. ITAQALLAH 00:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Nah, my assessment isn't "total misuse of the source to forward a POV", yours is. NN 04:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

in what way? please stop your disruption. ITAQALLAH 12:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I have explained many times the proper use of primary sources. Your reverts are disruptive, not my edits. NN 13:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

every editor barring yourself has rejected such original research, and have explained to you "many times" your fundamental misunderstanding of policy, on this page, on your talk page, and in the article history. also see the relevant policy talk page. ITAQALLAH 13:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT

I really wanted to violate it... and here is how I would have done it: "There is no mention in the Qu'ran for the master to require consent of the female captive for sex and there is no mention that a master doesn't need to require the consent of the female captive." Pretty stupid, eh? You cannot use a primary source to attempt to prove a negative. Firstly, this article sucks. It needs juristic sources because the Qur'an is meaningless. Islam has specific ways in which the scared texts are interpreted which are not readily apparent and your interpretations are original research. I would not doubt that there are jurists and probably major ones that do not feel that consent is needed, but that does not mean you have license to quote the Qur'an and use your own interpretation of it. Take the effort to do the research on this subject instead if you want to be an editor of this article. As of now you are being disruptive and you will be blocked if you keep it up. gren グレン 13:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

"you have license to quote the Qur'an and use your own interpretation of it" Sorry, no. I am not giving any interpretation, just a description. No personal opinion, no original research etc. Instead of making allegations about disruptions and threats you are advised to follow Wiki procedures such as RfC, consensus, mediation etc. NN 17:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

" It needs juristic sources because the Qur'an is meaningless". This is surely your opinion, and not acceptable to all. NN 18:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The Qur'an being meaningless was obviously flippant. The easiest way to solve this, I believe, is to quotes straight from policy.

• Primary sources are documents or people very close to the situation you are writing about. An eyewitness account of a traffic accident published in a newspaper, and the White House's summary of a president's speech are primary sources. Primary source material that has been published by a reliable source may be used for the purposes of attribution in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse primary sources. 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. Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge.

You are making a (juristic, not theological in this case) conclusion from the Qur'anic test which does not show in any way that Muslim jurists (because theologians are historically less important) agree with the selective quoting of the Qur'an. I 'threaten' you because this is a fundamental issue. This is not about whether a source is reliable or not it's what do Muslim scholars think. If you or anyone want to quote a reliable source about the issue that is fine. As I have mentioned I wouldn't be surprised if many didn't find consent to be necessary--but that does not follow from saying the Qur'an doesn't say consent is needed. You will agree that quoting 'facts' about the Qur'an are not always relevant nor do they represent what the traditional Muslim belief is. Qur'an 2:256 states something like "let there be no compulsion in religion". So, there is freedom of religion, right? No apostasy law in Islam, people are free to be what they want as it is sanctioned by the Qur'an. Of course it doesn't follow. There is apostasy law, there have been historically strong consequences for not converting. There are hundreds of verses that we could use to prove some point about Islam but it does not mean it represents the fiqh which creates the Islamic vision of sharia. gren グレン 19:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I too looked at the Wiki Policy about primary sources carefully. The part which discusses the proper use of a primary source is "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge." Now if I say "the Koran makes no mention of consent", then that is both a "descriptive claim" and one that "can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge". I understand that you and some others are arguing that it is a "negative" inference, but once again in the Wiki policy it says nothing about "negative" inferences.

As for your example about the apotasy law, note that in the text I am not saying "Koran does not mention the requirement of a woman's consent hence we conclude that Islam allows rape". That would be a description plus and interpretation. Obviously the second bit is explicitly forbidden by Wiki policy. But in my opinion "Koran does not mention the requirement of a woman's consent" is merely descriptive. Obviously it could lead the reader to a particular conclusion, and I think those objecting to the text are saying that I am actually reaching that conclusion. If we provide facts to readers there is always the possibility that they will arrive at conclusions. We can't be responsible for what conclusions readers reach, we can only abide by the restriction of providing only facts and not interpretations.

As for "nor do they represent what the traditional Muslim belief is" note that the text did not say "Koran does not mention any requirement of consent and that represents what the traditional Muslim belief is". As I see it, there is no need to confine the article to "traditional Muslim belief", besides that is something hard to identify.

The Koran is not an unimportant part of Muslim lives. Many Muslims read it daily, and most probably have been taught what is in it at some point in their lives. Scholarly opinions on the other hand change with time, and I would say that the Koran retains more influence than any scholarly opinion. Hence I believe that describing the Koran to the reader is important.

Obviously this is an important question that can impact many articles. I am not claiming that my view is necessarily right. I would however like us to reach the right answer and am willing to spend time to get there. NN 06:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not denying that it is descriptive, but the whole second part talks about how descriptive can be misleading and doesn't represent religious (in the example, Christian) tradition. It is clear that you are doing exactly what they warn you against in that section

My example with apostasy law may have been confusing so I will restate. Say I put "The Qur'an says 'let there be no compulsion in religion' (2:256)." in some Islam related article. Is that proper? It is descriptive, yes. I have added none of my own interpretation. The question is, does it represent "Islam" in the sense that it has understood by most Muslims over time? You seem to argue that quoting a verse is descriptive and therefore can be done. 1) I believe you can easily misrepresent the religion by doing that and 2) you violate the Wikipedia policy above that states you should note quote religious texts as law since theologians/jurists do not just form their opinion from one verse (or lack-there-of in your case). The fact that you are using a negation is not the primary issue. My example tried to give an example that seems to cast a rosy light on Islam because yours goes the other way. It is to show that if you letting Wikipedia just "descriptively" quote verses in either direction you will not get a sense of Islam that a scholar who has studied Islamic teaching will give you. Below I will add a (completely fictional) example of what the section should look like and how to use the Qur'an:

"Attar Usmani an 18th century Hanafi scholar concluded that because jurists found no evidence in the Qur'an or hadith mentioning consent before sexual intercourse with ma malakat aymanukum that it is permissible as long as it is done in accordance with Islamic etiquette. C. E. Bosworth in the Encyclopedia of Islam notes that only a small sect of Shafi'i scholars disagree with the practice because of their concerns that this could make other wives jealous. The Shia demand consent in the form of a nikah muta for sexual intercourse otherwise it is considered zina and both parties are subject to hudud penalties." --There, a mix of prominent Muslim scholars and secular Islamicists describing the tradition of Islam. The Qur'an is referred to because it is how the jurists made their decision but to use the Qur'an itself as the decision violates out policy and is misleading. gren グレン 09:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. You write "second part talks about how descriptive can be misleading and doesn't represent religious (in the example, Christian) tradition". Actually the way I read the second part [4] is that a primary source can't be used as "a source for the claim that X advocated Y" (or Jesus advocated eye removal as in the Wiki example). Note that is doesn't say that the description cannot be used, but that the description cannot be used as a source for a "claim". A sentence like "Koran does not mention requiring consent of the woman to sex" makes no claims, it is merely a description. A claim would be of the form "Koran does not mention requiring consent of the woman to sex, hence Koran advocates rape" (maintaining similarity with "X advocates Y"). The disputed text does not do this.

You write "The question is, does it represent "Islam" in the sense that it has understood by most Muslims over time?" If there was a Wiki policy that said "Articles about Islam should ONLY represent what is understood by most Muslims over time" I would accept that the disputed text should not be included. As such Wiki's requirement is that primary sources be used accurately and not used to make claims. You are of course more than welcome to add to the disputed text qualifications of the sort "This does not represent in the sense understood by most Muslims over time". Accordingly I would say that inserting "The Qur'an says 'let there be no compulsion in religion' (2:256)." is proper. Of course other editors may add more text to show in practice there is compulsion.

I don't think using the Koran violates Wiki policy as you conclude. I believe that the Koran is of great importance to Muslims and has great influence. Jurists come and go, but they base their opinions on the Koran, or at least claim to do so. The Koran endures in Islam but new jurists opinions arise. So for someone trying to learn about Islam, knowledge of the Koran is important and proper. If you feel an accurate description of the Koran is misleading, I would say you should add text explaining why it is misleading rather than deleting the disputed text. NN 13:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I can't 'prove' that you are wrong if you interpret it so narrowly. I obviously believe that you are wrong and that even if it's not explicit in policy then we should represent notable viewpoints. By using 'objective' description in an article you are making claims about what is important in relations to a subject. It's not that using the Qur'an violates Wikipedia policy, but it can easily be used to place emphasis on certain things that may or may not contradict what jurists say. I forget the exact number but only a relatively small percentage of verses were seen by jurists to be 'legal' verses. So, while the Qur'an is quite important to Muslims (it is God's word to them) it is not always important in the legal sense, and I believe that over time it has been read primarily for inspiration and prayer while the legal rulings have been taken from the ulama. (There is a breakdown in that with the Muslim Brotherhood, liberals and other groups trying to reclaim their power to interpret, but that's another issue.) So, if you don't interpret policy they that way then we can WP:IAR or something and taken it as how I believe an encyclopedia should be written. Describing verses if they were not important throughout history (or their absence was important) borders on original research and getting some good secondary sources is necessary. So, while describing the Qur'an is 'descriptive' it is also interpretation... but, I suppose in the end I've given up a lot of hope of having Wikipedia deal with Islam-related issues in an academic manner. gren グレン 13:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks once more for your reply. I read your post and need some time to think about it and reply. NN 16:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[de-indent] I would like to keep this discussion on track rather than let it digress. The issue as I see it is whether text that you (Grenavita) agree is "descriptive" of a primary source but also say it is "misleading" [5]. In the following I summarize my version of your latest post and my response:

• You say I interpret Wiki policy "narrowly". I submit that when there is a dispute, we can do no better than interpret Wiki policy accurately. Believe me, there is much material in Islam related articles that I would like removed because I believe it gives a misleadingly benevolent impression of Islam. However I do not do so as the material is referenced, and hence proper by Wiki policy, even though misleading. We all have to play by the same rules, hence we need to give both parties the same consideration.
• "even if it's not explicit in policy then we should represent notable viewpoints" The Koran is a "notable viewpoint" in matters Islamic.
• "By using 'objective' description in an article you are making claims about what is important in relations to a subject" Again, I believe Wiki policy has been designed to enable both sides to present their views as long as it is referenced. I would like to exclude much 'objective' material favorable to Islam because it presents a misleading impression, but don't because of Wiki policy. If there was a Wiki policy establishing a method to determine "imporatant in relation to a subject" then you could have appealed to it to exclude the disputed material. However in the real world as that is not possible, therefore I would say Wiki does not try to establish that standard. So we have to live with what we have, that is existing Wiki policy however "narrowly" it may seem to be implemented.
• "There is a breakdown in that with the Muslim Brotherhood, liberals and other groups trying to reclaim their power to interpret, but that's another issue." That really isn't another issue, that is almost the central issue. Like I said in my earlier post, jurists' opinions come and go but the Koran endures. So to say that only jurists' opinions should be presented, and the Koran not, is not tenable.
• "I believe that over time it has been read primarily for inspiration and prayer while the legal rulings have been taken from the ulama" That is your belief and in my opinion a rather rosy picture of Islam. Koran remains central to the religion, and quite easily leads to the rise of fundamentalist regimes like the Taliban. They did not get their opinions for reading the jurists, their jurists formulated their opinions based on what was in the Koran and what was politically expedient.
• "So, if you don't interpret policy they that way then we can WP:IAR" I am not sure I understood the meaning of this sentence. I hope you are not saying you are going to ignore other Wiki policy by appealing to IAR. That is hardly the recommended way to go when there is a dispute.

To summarize the disputed text is "descriptive" and "can be checked by non-experts". I believe you agree with that. Your objections are that it is "misleading", and not a "what is important in relations to a subject". I think these objections are subjective and cannot be established by Wiki policy. To come to a compromise I agree to change the text "There is no mention in the Qu'ran for the master to require consent of the female captive for sex" to "The Qu'ran does not address the issue of the master requiring or not requiring a slave woman's consent to sex". If this is not acceptable then we should move on to the next available means of dispute resolution, that is mediation and arb com. Thanks, NN 05:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is my short reply. I appealed to WP:IAR because I do not wish to get into a debate about the proper way to read Wikipedia rules. The goal is to write an encyclopedia and no work of any scholarly caliber would ever say the Qur'an doesn't mention that consent is necessary. They would look at whether consent was asked for throughout Islamic history and the various rulings on the issue. To say that jurists come and go but the Qur'an endures is silly. Yes, but the Qur'an is interpreted and is only understood through various methods. That doesn't mean scholars don't take a literalist approach and if some scholar says "the Qur'an doesn't ask for consent so it need not be given" then that is a notable viewpoint. But by trying to tell the reader what parts of the Qur'an are important you are trying to become a jurist. I seriously doubt the arbcom would ever take this case and I don't know what mediation will do. You may notice that I sporadically come and go from this article mainly because I believe there are many problems with the system and User:RadicalBender's opionion are in the ball park of my own. I tend to come back not because I hope Islam-related articles will ever be good under the current system but because Bollywood articles and other trivia-related things great and I can add to them. Wikipedia is the best-worst encyclopedia ever. gren グレン 15:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no mention in the Qur'an of ...

It's just descriptive! Should it be included in the article? Why don't we make a Category:List of things not mentioned in the Quran? Nonsense upon stilts.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 23:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You need to read previous discussion. Grenavitar agreed it is "descriptive". Also I have previously addressed the issue you raise. Essentially "slave woman's consent" is relevant to the issue, other things missing from the Koran are not. NN 09:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

So should we include every aspect of slave women that isn't explained in the Qur'an? "There is no mention of slave women to wear contraceptives". "There is no mention of slave women to orgasm". "There is no mention of slave women to consent to having nonsense written about them on Wikipedia". And so forth. --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 22:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Alternative Islamic Viewpoint?

Those websites arent supposed to be there. first of all there not notable and there biased. but the arguement is that they say that Muslims Must Marry slaves to have relationships or sex with them, that is False, that just means that ma malakat aymanakum doesnt even exist, but it does exist. they say that muslims must marry them to have sex with them, and unless they marry them they cannot have sex or relationships with them, which is just false. If people had to marry slaves to have sex or relationships with them then why on Earth would Hazrat Muhammad (Sm) accept Maria al-Qibtiyya. What does that mean now? And everything that Muhammad did is part of the Sunnah, everything he did was Islamic and Halal. My argument is here, and thus im in wanting to remove those unverified, non-notable and probably even biased website links. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.4.77.150 (talk) 12:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Agreed. They aren't "alternative" at all. The word "alternative" gives them undue weight. --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 22:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Please login. --Matt57 11:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I am removing the FFI links too. Both sites are relatively non-notable especially compared to IslamQA, Islam Online, and Al-Islam.org which are all large sites (if my Alexa mind serves me right). I had left it before because free minds was there but now that we've removed most non-notable links they all should go. gren グレン 02:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, apparently al-Islam.org isn't that big of a site... in any case I would claim it is rather authoritative Shia source as the others are authoritative traditional Sunni sources whereas FFI is not authoritative or scholarly. We could use a good scholarly discussion of the topic, but there don't seem to be any online. gren グレン 02:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

People: Notability of a link is NOT relevant when putting it in external links. These links are RELEVANT because they are explain the critical viewpoint. How is that putting "undue weight"? It is infact putting undue weight if you are not including any alternate viewpoints. Who is saying FFI is not scholarly? What makes one a scholar of Islam? They have to be a Muslim and be called a "Sheikh"? That doesnt work, sorry. --Matt57 11:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"What makes one a scholar of Islam?" a verifiable education in Islamic studies. try Schimmel, Watt, Bosworth, Wellhausen, Wensinck, Forward, Buhl, Crone, Esposito, Ernst; i could go on and on.. ITAQALLAH 14:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, FFI isn't scholarly... but neither is free minds. I removed it because another rather marginal and not so important view was removed. I realize the standards for this article is not high but I think we should keep uniform standards. IslamOnline and Islam Q&A are both important Sunni, sometimes different than traditional jurisprudence but still important sites. al-Islam (if I'm not mistaken) is the most important Shia website online. The removal was in the context of other removals... and my goal was to keep various marginal views or prune it down to just a few links. I'll let you all decide, but I think they come as a package. gren グレン 16:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you all explain to me: 1) How Esposito is more of a scholar than Robert Spencer (specifically), Ali Sina or Craigg Winn or any other critic of Islam? 2) If FFI isnt scholarly, why not? What makes a site "scholarly"? --Matt57 20:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

to address your first question: i think my above comment virtually answers that. Esposito has a PhD in Islamic studies, is a distinguished professor of the subject, and teaches it at universities. Spencer has no such educational pedigree related to Islam, and neither do Sina nor Winn. ITAQALLAH 22:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

"Robert Spencer holds a Master's degree in Religious Studies" as well. Not all people who have PhD's in Islamic studies are scholars of Islam. Bottomline: there's no official ruling or criteria for who is a scholar of Islam and who is not. A scholar to one is a bigot or apologetic to another - its all relative.--Matt57 23:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

"Robert Spencer holds a Master's degree in Religious Studies" - in fact, his specific qualification is in early Christianity or something like that, not in Islam. and thus, he isn't a scholar of Islam. ITAQALLAH 23:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I cant find any evidence that he did it in Christianity and didnt study anything about Islam. --Matt57 23:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

see his article. he has no verifiable qualification in Islamic studies, unlike Esposito and the other personalities i mentioned above. ITAQALLAH 23:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

And like I said, there's no formal defination of what makes a person a scholar in Islam. People who go for PhD's in Islam usually are Muslims or have an existing favourable view of Islam already. According to the stuff Spender was doing, he can certainly be termed as a scholar of Islam: "According to the biography at one of his websites,[1] Spencer began studying Islam in 1980 during his first year as an undergraduate at the University of North Carolina. He wrote freelance articles for various publications between 1980 and 2001 on Catholic religious issues. In 2002, he became an adjunct fellow with the Free Congress Foundation. He wrote seven monographs on Islam for the Free Congress Foundation in 2002 and 2003. He is a regular columnist for FrontPageMagazine.com, and Human Events. His writings on Islam and other topics have been published in various other publications." -- --Matt57 23:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Spencer's MA was in early Christianity. Spencer has no qualification related to Islam: that's how we determine who is and isn't a scholar. academic Islamic scholar Carl Ernst opines similarly: "... he has no academic training in Islamic studies whatever; his M.A. degree was in the field of early Christianity." as such, he cannot be considered a scholar of Islam. "People who go for PhD's in Islam usually are Muslims or have an existing favourable view of Islam already" not one of those who i mentioned above are Muslim, and to suggest that they had positive preconceived notions on Islam is to disparage their scholarship. there's nothing more to say here. ITAQALLAH 00:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said, there is no formal defination of a "scholar" of Islam. The same stuff you study while during a PhD, you can open the hadith and Quran and read Islamic history for yourself in other books. You may come out with a PhD but not be a "scholar" if you dont know enough about the subject. Its the actual knowledge of the people that is important, not their degrees. Again - there's no formal defination of a "scholar" of Islam. --Matt57 00:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

<r> Grenavitar, surely there must be some websites that should be in the External links section that are critical of this subject. I'll try to find some links, if not we will have to discuss the inclusion of the FFI or some other similiar link to balance the views on this section. There must not be undue weight for any viewpoint and having only approving websites is unbalancing the section.--Matt57 00:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

G, I have added 3 external links. Remember, the inclusion for external links is based on relevance, not notability. --Matt57 00:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Narayan Nev and beyond (original research)

I haven't been reading this article. Someone asked me to comment about the argument Narayan's argument... so I don't know if this is new or not but "Ma malakat aymanukum" in the Qur'an" is a horrible messy original research section. I have been arguing that it's not permissible for Narayan to add "the Qur'an does not mention consent" and I stand by it but this whole section has only Qur'an quotes for citations. Ma malakat aymanukum and sex seems to have some better sources... but, this needs to be cleaned up... and I feel bad that I hadn't noticed it before and only complained about Narayan's edit when the rest of the article has similar problems. You can quote the Qur'an verses, but they should be referenced in terms of important scholarship on the Qur'an, not as an editor's interpretation of it. gren グレン 16:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"You can quote the Qur'an verses, but they should be referenced in terms of important scholarship on the Qur'an". Well, no... that's not what Wiki policy says. It actually says that the Qur'an can be quoted only for descriptive purposes, cannot be interpreted. Narayan 09:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Original research

Quoting the Qur'an is original research. Saying that "So and so Sura says X" is original research. Please find a notable scholar which has expressed those opinions. (Shakir, Pickthall, etc. are translators, not Islamic scholars)--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 01:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

AmericanThinker.com - James

The author of that external linked article is James and is notable: "James M. Arlandson (PhD) teaches introductory philosophy and world religions at a college in southern California. He has published a book, Women, Class, and Society in Early Christianity (Hendrickson, 1997)." from [6]. He is also author of a book [7].

He qualifies as a Secondary source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS#Types_of_source_material

Any thoughts as to why he's not a RS? Please refer to policy. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Two quick comments, not intended to be the last word but just a quick personal reaction. (1) This author has a clear and declared anti-Islam POV, and declares his motivation clearly. He declares it as "heartbreaking" when a Christian converts to Islam etc (see http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/why_i_write.htm) (2) the author doesn't appear to be notable enough for example to qualify for his own article on Wikipedia. Reading his stuff (as a fairly main stream Christian, sorry) he makes me feel rather uneasy: I think he has an axe to grind, and therefore isn't a good secondary source since his subjective judgement may be iffy. However, he does try to give references in his articles, so perhaps (depending on the issue) it is worth tracking them down? --BozMo talk 19:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

If this is about this conclusion : [8] then I would be strongly inclined to disallow it. He seems to be trying to interpret primary sources and reach a conclusion on which he doesn't have any notability as an authority: or am I missing something? --BozMo talk 19:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

having a PhD doesn't really make you qualified to speak about Islam if it's in another topic. it doesn't seem as if his work on Islam is endorsed by any reputable institutions. furthermore, the publisher of this article (i.e. the website) also seems to be unauthoritative, unscholarly, and rather biased. lastly, the unreliable author, writing on an unreliable website, makes tabloid-esque claims Islam not supported by academic opinion, which further magnifies his unreliability in this regard (see WP:REDFLAG). see also WP:ATT, WP:RS, and a number of sections under WP:NPOV. ITAQALLAH 19:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't knock PhDs. Mine was hard work. Seriously though you have a point that this is not a peer reviewed publication; and not an author who would stand up in his own right without peer review. --BozMo talk 19:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You know, I'm thinking we have so many critics of Islam writing books and we should hopefully be able to find sources from books that are not questionable like this. This is still a good and relevant external link in my opinion. If we disregard his reasons as to why he writes against Islam and just look at the article as it is, its a good article. There are very few External links on this topic critical of Islam. Anyone who is going to be critical on this issue would appear to have an axe to grind against Islam, thats unavoidable. He gives good references and draws conclusions. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

When we have too many high qualified sourced on Islam and slavery published by notable academic presses, I don't see any justification for using this source. I think Mr. Arlandson is not an expert on Islam. He has studied Islam on his own after 9/11. Let's take one comment of his: "But this Islamic tolerance has been questioned of late, notably by Robert Spencer in his book, The Myth of Islamic Tolerance." - Robert Spencer is only a writer for public on Islam. The real scholars of the field are Bernard Lewis, Mark Cohen, Norman Stillman, etc etc. Spencer is simply out of the circle. Sometime ago when I wanted to write something about Spencer in wikipedia, I contacted many professors including Prof.Norman Stillman. He replied back to me that he hasn't read any of Spencer's writings. Prof. Carl Ernst says that his writings are not scholarly. It seems that Mr. Arlandson is simply a beginner in this field. --Aminz 20:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you know of any scholars who are critical of Islam? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the important thing to remember is that Wiki articles are subject to Wiki policies like WP:RS and WP:ATT. By these policies Arlandson qualifies, and his published work in American Thinker qualifies too. It is not a blog, and articles in American Thinker go through a process of review before being published. Whether he is pro or anti Islam is besides the point. If we were to exclude his work because he is unsympathetic to Islam, we would have to exclude those sympathetic to Islam too, and soon there would be no articles. Also requirements like "PhD from a reputable institution" are beyond Wiki policies. If editors insist on imposing these standards, they should either take action to change Wiki policies, or the matter should end up in mediation or arb com. NN 07:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

from WP:ATT: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." this is a specification which facilitates that we use those authors who are authoritative in the field of Islam. this has been explained in great detail on the talk page of WP:MOSISLAM. ITAQALLAH 20:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You missed the "or" in the bit of Wiki policy you quoted. There is no reason to assume that Arlandson is not "trustworthy". Given that he has published quite a bit about Islam, I would even say he should be regarded as "authoritative". "American Thinker" attracts well known authors, is not a blog, and appears to have "a reliable publication process". If you disagree with any of these assessments please provide reasons. NN 09:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Arlandson is not trustworthy with respect to articles on Islam. He is not a scholar, doesn't have any credentials relevant to the field, yadda yadda.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 11:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

trustworthiness is proven, with reasons of substance. trustworthiness is not declared, for people to then refute. see negative proof. Arlandson doesn't appear to be trustworthy, his theories amount to WP:FRINGE. his works don't appear in scholarly peer-reviewed papers, they appear on unreliable websites. furthermore, ATT says "authoritative in relation to the subject at hand", and it has been demonstrated what that means ad nauseum. ITAQALLAH 19:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a very notable author for Islam. Check his Google search. Arlandson wouldnt be trustworthy if he wasnt so popular. By what standards are we evaluating "trustworthiness" anyway? Most of the sites linked are not unreliable. Is AmericanThinker unreliable? How is that proved by using Wikipedia policies? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

a lot of people are 'notable', it doesn't mean that they deserve to be quoted on Islam or even marine biology. see WP:RS, WP:ATT and other basic content policies which demonstrate what is understood to be a reliable source. ITAQALLAH 22:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Author qualifies as a secondary source. Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS#Types_of_source_material --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

a secondary source need not be reliable. ITAQALLAH 23:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Secondary sources can be used as RS. Thats the reason they're explained in the RS section I linked above. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

"secondary source" is a term used in historical nomenclature to describe sources which comment on primary sources. if you're a secondary source, which even you can be when you are discussing something else, that doesn't automatically make you a 'reliable source' ITAQALLAH 23:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

In this case, he is. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

that is for you to establish, using Wikipedia policy and guidelines. WP:RS and WP:ATT suggest that he is not reliable. ITAQALLAH 00:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

According to RS, he is a reliable source and infact a recommended source: "The informed and expert interpretation, interpolation, extrapolation or corroboration of primary sources to synthesize a conclusion. In general, Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable secondary sources." - By the amount of study he has done on Islam and involved himself on the internet, he has made a name for himself as an expert. Look at this article for example. It is extremely well-sourced and well written. It contains every aspect of a scholarly study of Islam, and has a lot of deep study on Islam. This is just one of his articles. He also has a PhD and teaches World Religions at a college in Southern California. Look at one of his collection of articles here. By all means, he is a reliable source. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

see WP:RS. a reliable source is one who is considered a scholar on the subject. do not cherrypick from guidelines and policy, study the policy as a whole. take a look at WP:RS#Aspects_of_reliability. Arlandson is not a scholar of Islam (and it doesn't matter what his PhD unless its in Islamic studies), and his writings appear on non-scholarly, right-wing websites. attempting to avoid this by arguing that his writings are "extremely well sourced" (merely your opinion), or pointing to the apparent quality of his articles (again, your own opinion) is not, on its own, any basis for arguing that he is a reliable source. several editors have told you this, including an administrator, and it would be wise for you not to continue forwarding silly arguments ad nauseum. ITAQALLAH 15:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[de-indent] There is nothing in existing Wiki policies that suggest Arlandson is not "authoritative" or not "trustworthy". I understand that some editors are referring to his apparent lack of academic degrees as proof of his not being authoritative and untrustworthy, however Wiki policy does not say academic degrees are essential. I am sure that Wiki policies were written with a lot of thought and debate, and we should respect them as they are. If you believe that Wiki policies are imperfect then you should agitate to have them changed, rather than trying to impose ad hoc policies. I would accept Arlandson was not authoritative and untrustworthy if it could be shown that he was in the habit of lying, providing false information, etc. As none of this has happened and his work is notable, it is acceptable by Wiki standards. NN 09:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Nayan Nev, trustworthiness and authoritativeness must be proven, not assumed until disproven. the fact that your use these words as you have suggests that you know very well that these words may be ambiguous and subjective on their own, which is exactly why these very pages then substantiate what is meant by these words. your conditions for what must occur to prove Arlandson to be inappropriate are irrelevant, as it would simply result in debate over whether he is right or wrong, which again is a subjective conclusion. suffice to say this: none of his absurd and polemical assertions are supported by academic scholars, who are actually qualified in Islamic studies. in fact, we have already discussed that one can only be authoritative on a subject if they possess the appropriate scholarly qualifications, which is exactly what WP:RS says, so there is no imposition of 'ad hoc' policies as you say. the quality requirements of the source, in the case of the POV-pushing he is being used for, happen to be higher as per WP:REDFLAG and WP:FRINGE. the bottom line is this: we have a non-scholar making accusations not endorsed by the scholarly academic community. his lack of scholarship makes him unreliable, and his fringe arguments make him even more so. if you disagree with this assessment, we can always take it over to the talk page of WP:RS to obtain further comments. ITAQALLAH 15:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I have asked you before to name one "academic scholar" who you think is significantly critical of Islam. Am I right in saying that all the people you believe who are scholars of Islam hold favourable views of Islam? His assertions are not "absurd", as you claim. They are well researched as I have pointed out. He has a PhD and teaches World Religion - what more qualifications do you want, ItaqAllah? He is more than qualified to be a Reliable Source and a scholar of Islam. REDFLAG and FRINGE do not apply. There are no claims that he is making that are not accepted by the community and such. This is your usual criticism of Islam. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Itaqallah, I clicked on the link you provided about a negative proof expecting to find something about Wiki policies but ended up reading an article. It is absurd to think I don't understand the meaning of the words "trustworthiness and authoritativeness must be proven", please don't clutter your replies with unnecessary links. You need to provide quotes from actual Wiki policies, I repeat policies, and not links to articles explaining what "negative proof" means. As for the "scholarly academic community", unless you provide evidence for such a creature, further evidence about what this creature believes, and conclude by quoting Wiki policies showing the supremacy of this creature, its relevance remains rather like an Unicorn. NN 17:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well said, thanks NN. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Nayan Nev, i have relayed those links which you should read in order to understand the faulty nature of the logic you are applying. you have constantly requested citation of policy, yet when it is shown to you, you seem to ignore it - as you did on WP:MOSISLAM, and as you did on this very page concerning your original derivation the Qur'an. policies and guidelines have been cited multiple times in the discussions we have had, please refer back to them. as for this strange denial of the existence of an academic scholarly community, see WP:RS (The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals.)

Matt57, your contributions in this discussion consist mainly of a series of unsubstantiated claims, and thus obstructive to the progression of this discussion. what is Arlandson's PhD in? you refuse to prove that he has any qualification related to Islam. he teaches "Introductory philosophy and World Religions" at an unnamed college. that's too ambiguous for us to ascertain whether or not he is an expert on Islam, and it doesn't help us uncover what he is apparently qualified in (his PhD could be in Christianity, or in Ancient philosophy, and so on - the former is far more likely considering the topic of his only published book- "Women, Class and Society in Early Christianity"). "what more qualifications do you want, ItaqAllah?" - all that's needed is a verifiable qualification, in Islam or Islamic studies, which is what all scholars and experts of Islam have - in the same way you must have a qualification in medicine or medical sciences to be a RS on medical knowledge. his works on Islam don't seem to have attracted any attention in academic journals (and thus the scholarly community which NN seeks to deny) at all, and these works do not appear in academic peer-reviewed sources (americanthinker.com qualifies as partisan), let alone the requirement of his work having been 'thoroughly vetted'. ITAQALLAH 22:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Itaq, 1) there's no such thing a scholar of Islam 2) Even if there was, a PhD in Islam is not required to be considered a RS on Islamic issues. He teaches World Religion, so obvoiusly that is related to Islam and that does make him a scholar, judging by the high quality of articles he writes on Islam. What are the "academic journals" you speak of? I dont know of any. Please point them out. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

As for Itaqallah's allegation that Matt's contribution is "mainly of a series of unsubstantiated claims", the very author we are debating, that is Arlandson, was discovered by Matt. I would like to thank Matt once again, NN 03:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Aminz wrote, "The real scholars of the field are Bernard Lewis, Mark Cohen, Norman Stillman, etc etc." I endorse this completely. Of course this list is hardly complete, but it is illustrative of the standards we should be applying.

Matt57, you asked Itaqallah, "Am I right in saying that all the people you believe who are scholars of Islam hold favourable views of Islam?" I imagine that Itaqallah would accept all of these as impeccably qualified sources; I rather doubt that either Lewis or Stillman holds a particularly favorable view of Islam. What you won't generally find is anti-Islam polemic, because this falls outside the scope of the academic historian's job description, and would detract from the credibility of their work.Proabivouac 06:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Blog?

I restored a summary of the disputed material, but I am not sure about this source being reliable for the subject. Seems that the website in question is a blog, and as such may not be considered a RS for the assertions made. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have removed that text, as it is just the unqualified opinion of a person in a blog. I would also delete it from the EL section, on that basis. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If editors do not accept this, please pursue dispute resolution rather than editwar. The first step would be to place a Request for comments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I must agree with Jossi. I'm not sure that I would necessarily remove AT from external links; the existence of this opinion may well interest readers of this article. Arlandson would be a reliable source on feminism in the New Testament, or even on the New Testament; but I see no reason to believe that he is reliable here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Repeating what I said at Reliable Sources, James's PhD is is "Comparative Literature, emphasizing the analysis of religious texts". I believe he is well qualified to comment on Islam. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Matt57, I must concur that Arlandson, relative to this topic, falls short of the high sourcing standards we should aim to uphold in this space.Proabivouac 06:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

sorry

ok my edit summary was rude. Can I take it back or something? Unflavoured 07:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC) But checking the history, IP corrected this glaring error TWICE and it was reverted. Wonder why? Usually corrections are praised, not reverted and labeled as vandalism. Interesting... Unflavoured 07:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

So what does aymanhun mean? Arrow740 07:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

aymanukum: the speaker is talking directly to a group of males (men/boys)

aymanuhun: the speaker is refering to a group of absent/faraway females (women/girls)

but that is not the only error: its a common thing for a person to change a few letters in a arabic to corrupt the meaning or defile it. This is especially true of non-Muslim people who speak arabic, and the term comes from the Quran. Here the sentence is changed to either make it lesbian-istic (?) or just simply to have fun altering an Arabic sentence from the Quran and knowing that they can get away with it cause no1 will check. Unflavoured 08:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do I need to write so much? The term now is the correct one used in the Quran, the one before was an insult/clever piece of vandalism. You read arabic? Unflavoured 08:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)