"

 In Response to gren's Comments on Zeno's Edits of the POW Section 
 recently commented on my edits in another section . I will address them here.

 if you are going to make large changes on controversial articles it is, as you say, necessary to discuss them and come to a concensus.  No such thing happened with Zeno's edits and for lack of time I reverted to the less horrible version.""  

, it's not true that I have not discussed my edits. Nor have I made a large change to the article - I have concentrating on one sub-section of the article, and I have concentrated on a small number of facts regarding the treatment of POWs: i.e. the facts that they may be executed, enslaved for labor or sex, ransomed, or freed. These four options in Islamic law concerning POWs are well-known amongst academics and scholars, as my sources have proven. So my edits have not been making any large structural changes to the article, I have concentrated on one sub-section and have elaborated on these four facts. And, as I said, I did discuss these edits, contrary to your allegation. I had been discussing the POW section for several days before I made my recent edit. On July 19, you made this allegation that I have not discussed my edits to the POW section. The truth is that I started discussing the POW section 10 days ago, on July 10, when I started the section Talk:Jihad#Heraclius.27_Mass_Reversion_War. The issue was subsequently discussed in three lengthy sections of this discussion page, before you made this allegation. I had been discussing the POW section here for 10 days, and yet you said that I did not discuss it at all. This is therefore a false allegation on your part. Please follow the discussion page more closely if you are going to talk about who has been discussing what and since when.

 Once you are at wikiepdia for long enough you tool will probably get sick of the same type of narrow-sighted edits that continually happen by new users.  

I'm not sure who or what you are talking about. If you believe that my edit on the POW section was narrow-sighted, then please explain why - enlighten us with your apparently wide-sighted perspective.
 
 ""Maybe this is just me but it seems that ahistorical apologetics are much less dangerous than wholescale demonization and editting articles to say ""Islam says X thing that modern western society doesn't accept. Clearly, neither are very good ways to write an article but the latter has more of an agenda and is usually from the type that end up calling Zora or dab or I Muslims.""  

Again, I am not sure who or what you are talking about. I certainly have not denounced anyone's views just because they are Muslims. On the contrary, I have said before that I wish there were more Muslims editing this article so that a wider Muslim view could represented than the one that is currently represented by the ""ahistorical apologetics"" as you call them. 

Having said that, I strongly disagree with your opinion that no one on Wikipedia should describe any Islamic practices or laws that modern society Western does not accept. We must inevitably discuss what ""Islam says"" about various subjects. We must report the objective facts about traditional Islamic beliefs, in a neutral fashion. Neutrality does not mean that if some traditional belief disagrees with the values of modern Western society then it must be not be mentioned. You seem to be advocating ahistorical apologetics over neutral and objective facts. You have not disproven any of my claims about POWs and Islam, but you have insisted that these objective facts are somehow ""dangerous."" As for your allegations of ""wholesale demonization,"" they are unwarrented. The way that Islam treats prisoners of war is completely in line with the norms of the medieval era, during which these practicies were codified. It is a fact of life that Islamic beliefs are deeply rooted in the past, and as a result they are sometimes in disagreement with modern, secular humanist values. If you were truly neutral about this subject, then you would not object to the reporting of facts just because the demonstrate a disagreement between traditional Islam and modern, secular humanist values.  It would be the pinnacle of POV pushing if the article were nothing more than ahistorical appolgetics that ommit any and all facts which demonstrate that traditional Islam is at odds with modern secular humanism. Wikipedia is not the appropriate place for appologetics.

 Balance is not exactly Muslims say