Talk:Islamic terrorism/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Lead sourcing issue

The first sentence of the lead is dubiously sourced. We clearly imply that this phenomena is accurately called "Islamic terrorism" but then source this to a source that argues the exact opposite. If the move happens, as suggested above, this will not be an issue, but if it doesn't a new source is required. I suspect the original source was added at some point when this entry was not named "Islamic terrorism" at all.PelleSmith (talk) 13:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

What does the source argue?Bless sins (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Have changed it to cite us government.93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

"Islamist terrorism"

Some time ago, editors (not including me) agreed that this article was about "Islamic terrorism" not "Islamist terrorism". Hence they changed the name. Currently the lead treats Islamism as a synonym for Islam, something that is wildly inaccurate. Unless there is a source that treats both followers of Islam, and followers of Islamism the same when it comes to terrorism, this shouldn't be there. If there is such a source, please quote it.Bless sins (talk) 01:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of discussion on the title name in 2007, and with the exception of one C. Logan the consensus was for Islamist Terrorism. I'm going to change the name. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Boogaloogie, it seems that the discussion to which you are referring was started on the very day that an admin closed a discussion which led to moving the article to “Islamic terrorism”. Such a contentious change as moving the page to “Islamist terrorism”, without a formal move request and discussion, would be vandalism and reverted. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I won't change the name without discussion on it. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The current title is unacceptable and I put POV tag on it on the basis of former discussions which you can find here, then here and here. Unfortunately there isn't any consensus over the title of the article and I think it's the worst title which could be chosen.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this article should be renamed to "Islamist terrorism," as that's what the article is about. Titling the page "Islamic" is inappropriate. --Aude (talk) 06:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This may be a moot argument. Is the correct term not Islamisist? I know Islamist is in popular use but I feel that the former is more correct in English Opiumjones 23 (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

:I propose we re-name it to Jihadist not Islamic. There is no connection between the religion and also there is much confusion over the term. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 14:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I retract it. The name is fine because there is Christian terrorism and Jewish terrorism. You see even some us get confused over the term! Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 14:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

An excellent source for arguing that terroism is mainstream Islamic practice is www.jihadwatch.org. Given that it quotes directly from the Qu'ran and uses Islamic doctrine to support the interpretations that favour terrorism, it seems remiss that it would be neglected on this topic. Starmaster80 (talk) 01:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

My inclination would be to keep it as "Islamic Terrorism". Islamism is specially the belief in an political system government by Islamic rules and values (roughly). One could easily have (and indeed frequently does) a terrorist act that is motivated by an interpretation of Islam, but not directly connected to the establishment of an Islamic political system. JEB90 (talk) 00:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Then let's keep this about Islamic terrorism, and not bring Islamist terrorism. Unless a source says Islamic terrorism = Islamist terrorism, I find it ridiculous that we would equate Islam (the root word of Islamic) with Islamism (the root word for Islamist).Bless sins (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Of course, while Islam and Islamism are not the same thing, Islamic Terrorism is a subset of Islamic Terrorism to the extent that Islamism is informed by an understanding of Islam. So, Islamist Terrorism would be appropriately included here, although it would be incorrect to equate the two things completely. JEB90 (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source that claims that "Islamic [I assume you mean Islamist] Terrorism is a subset of Islamic Terrorism"? I have a source that disavows the term "Islamic terrorism" to describe what it calls "Islamist terrorism".Bless sins (talk) 05:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I did mean "Islamist," sorry. There are any number of sources which deal with the relationship between Islamism and Islam. I don't have quotes and page numbers in front of me at the moment, but every serious scholar of the area from Bernard Lewis to Fazlur Rahman has deal with the relationship between the two (I'd recommend Peter Demant's "Islam vs. Islamism" book for a decent examination, which describes Islamism as "the politicization of religion" but concedes that Islamism is informed by Islam). My point though was largely semantic. I'm claiming that: if, "Islamism" is a politically system informed by an understanding of Islam. And "Islamist Terrorism" is terrorism informed by Islamism. And "Islamic Terrorism" is terrorism informed by an understanding Islam. Then, "Islamist Terrorism" is a form of "Islamic Terrorism." The idea that "terrorism is un-islamic" is an fair theological and political point, but inappropriate to an encyclopedia. If the terrorists say they're informed by Islam, we ought to take that at face value and include them as Islamic Terrorists. The problem here is that people seem to think that by describing Islamism as Islamic, we are equating Islam and Islamism... which would be stupid, but also not what I think it going on here. The key question here, I think, is: Is there any Islamic terrorism that is not Islamist? If no, then we should change the name. If yes, then Islamist terrorism is another subset of Islamic terrorism along with non-Islamist terrorism. JEB90 (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Musten (talk) 07:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC) There are two versions of Islam. One that is being propogated by terrorists and other which is being propogated by moderate/peaceful Muslims. Most non-Muslims hear and amplify and even justify the version propogated by terrorists. Moreover, they question the authenticity of the version propogated by moderate/peaceful muslims, thereby muting moderate voices.

The fact is, both versions are nothing but point of views. It is really upto non-Muslims to choose to believe the version they want to and amplify. If they amplify moderate/peaceful Muslim's version, that will become stronger.

Islam, like any other religion, preaches the same thing. It is no different than any other religion. It is just presented differently. The different presentation may be the effect of learning or the circumstances prevailing in those days when Islam came into existence. History does not always tell the truth. If you are following any religion, believe that Islam preaches the same thing which your religion preaches, just in a different way.

You can choose to amplify this voice and make it stronger or put forth your arguments to justify the version of the terrorists. That will determine how Islam or any other religion is perceived by masses.

I am sure we have all learnt in our childhood about "United we stand, divided we fall". Same thing goes for the problem of terrorism. If we combine all regional terrorism and bind them all with the string of religion, the problem will stand stronger. Once we divide the problem and isolate it, it dies its natural death.

Al-Qaeda has successfully combined regional issues and put a veneer of religion over it to strengther itself.

Within this context, rather than calling it Islamic terrorism, it will be prudent to call it Kashmiri militancy fuelled by Pakistan's separatists views or Palestine militancy or Taliban's militancy.

Kashmiri militants, like erstwhile Khalistanis are confined to India. They just happened to be Muslims. For this example, imagine if the Kashmiris were Christians and wanted Independent Kashmir, will it be prudent to call it Christian Terrorism?

Palestine militancy is confined to Palestine. They don't come and bomb Indian cities. Similarly, Talibans are confined to Afghanistan and Pakistan. They are fighting for their cause and beliefs in the same way as ULFA or LTTE is fighting for their cause and belief.

So, it will help solve problems of terrorism and security if we see them separate rather than combine them as Islamic terrorism.

Its just a matter of changing one's perception to solve problems and establish peace. Musten (talk) 07:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC) Musten (talk) 11:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Further more, I would like to add following as a reason for not terming this as a Islamic Terrorism Islam consists of many denominations. Major two sects are Sunni and Shia. Within these sects there are many more branches. One of the minor branch of Sunni muslims believe that Jihad is the "sixth pillar" of Islam (other five being Shahadah - belief that there is only one god and his messenger is Muhammed, Salah - five time prayers, Zakat - charity, Sawm - fasting during ramazan, Hajj - pilgrimage to Mecca). This Sunni minority sect is referred to as Wahhabi. Osama belongs to this Sunni sect.

Now, only one minority sect of Sunni Muslims believe in Jihad. Thus one can say that it is "Wahhabi Terrorism". This kind of terrorism is not only impacting non-Muslims, it is also impacting other sects of Islam as well. So, for instance, Shia muslims are target of these Wahhabis because they Shias believe in Ali. These Wahhabis want all sects of Islam to follow only their version of Islam.

By calling it Islamic Terrorism, we are implying that all sects of Islam are Wahhabis, which is not true. There are huge differences between each sects and school of thoughts.

By calling it Wahhabi Terrorism, the scope of terrorism is narrowed down to one sect of Islam. This allows us all to focus on containing Wahhabism which is radicalizing Islam and trying to set the current thought process back by 1400 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi

Musten (talk) 11:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect to moderate Muslims, the above is quite confused with respect to Kashmir. They are Islamic terrorists because they propagate Islam. Islamic terrorists -- the Taliban -- in the Swat valley also demand independent Kashmir and hence Government of Pakistan states that they are Kashmiri freedom fighters. But by now you must have heard of the Taliban forcing Sharia and Islam on teh whole of Swat as a condition to cease-fire within Pakistan. Hence they are not fighting for Kashmir, but rather Islam. Please take care when attributing allegiances. Gandhi was a freedom fighter. Taliban and LeT are Islamic terrorists. Mark the difference. Nshuks7 (talk) 09:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Improvements to this article

This article is about a very important contemporary topic and it can be a real encyclopedic source for many people researching the many facets of Islamic terrorism. While the article contains many useful facts, it also violates NPOV, has evolved into an Attack Page, is an example of Fact Picking and full of Original Research. Let's start to clean this up by making it compile with WP policies. I will start it by first fixing Original research and NPOV section and will keep each change small and document it. I will also save it before going on to another change. This will allow anyone who disagrees to check my work, edit, or undo each change. But, please don't make blanket reversions without discussing first.

My attempt is to improve this article for the benefit of WP and hopefully we can come to a consensus where we can remove the "POV" and "cleanup" tags.1detour (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Recent

1. I restored a revert/edit by Jimmy. Though according to Jim "no other wording was honest," Jim's wording itself was not English.
2. I restored a paragraph that Jimmy removed, that deals with the reference to God as the justification for violence. Sources and more description here are forthcoming.
3. The language "ideology of violence" is an accurate and concise definition of terrorism, that deals with its two main aspects in plain and neutral language: "terror" is largely superlative for "violence," and the affix "-ism" indicates an ideology. Even though certain incarnations of 'violence ideology' fit within larger political or religious ideologies, "terror" itself, aside from being the emotional reaction to such violence, is simply as the definition states. "the Russian counterterrorism law defines terrorism as "the ideology of violence and practice of exerting pressure on decision making by state bodies" (Terrorism in asymmetrical conflict: ideological and structural aspects, By Ekaterina Stepanova, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Oxford University Press US, 2008 ISBN 0199533555, 9780199533558 186 pages). -Stevertigo 14:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Original Research is not welcome. This refers both to the meaningless text you've posted here and the edits made in the article it's self. making up the meaning of the term terrorism is unhelpful and against guidelines, please refrain from making unproductive edits and read up on rules before trying to argue a point you are already informed is incorrect. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 15:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Your arguments are so strong. How will I answer? Just taking the first example, you reject language directly quoted from a book on terrorism, itself quoting Russian counter-terrorism law, and call it "original research." No, actually you didn't —you just state "original research is not welcome," and make no actual substantive argument as to why cited terms and concepts constitute "original research." Strong as your arguments are, however, you do go on to call what "what [I've] posted here, and the edits made in the article it's self " ([sic]- the word, in the English language, is "itself," not "it's self"), and state in an obtuse way (via a klunky reference to policy) that I'm just "making up the meaning of the term terrorism." All very strong points indeed. I could go on..

..And I will ! You also strongly ask that I "please refrain from making unproductive edits and read up on rules." For starters, I've been here seven years now, and I've help write some of those "rules" you so strongly and yet uselessly reference. Second, while I appreciate the improbable possiblity that your writing and even editing might be far superiour to mine, or anyone else's for that matter, your now twice-mentioned (and there's more..) lack of English language skills presents a barrier to our consideration of your writing, or rather, reverting (cf. WP:NINJA). Strong as it is. "..before trying to argue a point you are already informed is incorrect" is just another example (of both not-so-good English and your now familiar 'strong arguments') and I'm sure you will offer us more in the very near future. Sincerest regards, -Stevertigo 17:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor i feel a need to comment on this revision, which seems to be a form of pov pushing. The inserted line "with the active support and participation of nearly all other world states" seems to indicate no one agrees with the combatant on the left side(The terrorists), and all flock to the combatant on the right side (the US). The statement itself even seems to be incorrect. The War on Terrorism article lists a total of 39 combatants (including the US) on one side of the war; Yet with a good 209 states that have sovereignity on this world this can not be called "Nearly all world states". At the same time an attack on "World Citizens"? That would indicate that anyone on this world is a target. At least create a better context that only refers to the correct group such as "Their perceived enemies" or something alike. Simply saying world citizens would mean that by now they would have exterminated themselves, as they also fall into that category :) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your insights. Keep in mind that no state has open stated their support for Al-Qaeda, while even the most hardline fundamentalist states like Iran and Saudi Arabia have expressed their sympathies, if not the support of troops, to the U.S. Likewise, the international dimensions need to be considered. Even in ancient Greece, battles between city-states had international dimensions such as in allegiances and foreign troop support. How is the "global" war on terrorism any more localized to just the United States and a few particular countries than even ancient Sparta? The WOT article figure does not deal with "international support," rather it deal with just troop support. Which might be an important distinction, if you consider various other aspects of the campaign — no-safe-harbor policies, counter-finance support such as freezing or confiscating bank accounts, and simple provision of intelligence support.

The term "world citizens" should be fairly obvious, and in fact is impervious to the kind of paradox you suggest, if it is understood. The word "citizen" means something —its a concept of being in a society with the full acceptance and privileges of that society. Citizenship is not irrevocable, and people who do evil things and sometimes just locally improper things can lose their local citizenship. The world is a society. Likewise an accepted and privileged person in the world is a world citizen. There are no taxes involved, and certain crimes may be treated differently in different places, but world citizenship has a serious meaning which you don't quite yet give enough credit to.

I'd appreciate any suggestion of alternative text. Any source you have for your idea that terrorist or anti-terrorist concepts of "enemy" are only "perceptual" and not actually real? --Stevertigo 19:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

British Attitude to Terrorism and Interpretation of Qur'an

I am deleting this section as it does not mention anything about the British attitude to terrorism. Instead it just talks about Brian Cloughley's view on terrorism. He does not represent the British people and I don't even know who is.Wikinpg (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Also removed some bias in the wording of interpretation of Qur'an, and added an example of an Islamic terrorist interpreting the Qur'an to justify their actions.Wikinpg (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

To the editors

I feel that the first paragraph of the lead is very fairly written. I believe that it accurately captures the situation without bias or slant towards either the Western or non-Western facets, in a topic open to such problems. Well done. SGGH ^ping! 22:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The first paragraph is not representative of the article, especially the different viewpoints about the motivation of terrorism as well as the examples of attacks listed at the bottom of the article; some of the attacks are clearly nationalistics (Palestanians and Israelis) as well as those where Christian Palestanians have been involved.1detour (talk) 03:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Removal of revision 292798362 by 1detour

Do the editors agree with this removal. 1detour says:

"POV. Not encyclopedic. Not-referenced. Theorizing that capital punishment and suicidal terrorism is the same is not worthy of WP."

How come it's okay to have the views of the clerics who claim beheadings are unislamic. But we don't get to hear the views of those who argues that beheadings are Islamic. I have referenced everything, except the beheadings at the battle of trench. If you want a reference: "Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, p. 461-464."

The entry is not saying capital punishment and suicidal terrorism are the same. Critics are pointing out that it's false for the clerics to say beheadings are unislamic. When beheading do occur as part of sharia law, were ordered by prophet muhammad and have been performed by those who have tried to enforce sharia law. There are also quotes in the Qur'an, which I have listed, which appear to support beheadings. Muslims follow the actions of the prophet, so if the prophet ordered beheading of his enemies. Doesn't that mean muslims are allowed to do the same to enemies of Islam? This is a perfectly legitimate point and I have referenced everything. Removing this entry is making this article very one side and I haven't added anything factually incorrect. I also haven't made any opinions/statements, just presented the evidence for the other side of the argument. Wikinpg (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks you don't understand Wikipedia:Original research. If a state carries out capital punishment, it is not a case of state terrorism unless reliable sources intrepret it that way. This is the case with the Holocaust or the Trench Battle: if you have sources treating it as Islamic terrorism you can include it. If not don't waste people's time. --Wadq (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikingp, I believe you have good intentions. But, for material to be publishable on WP, there are several policies and guideleines that need to be met, including avoiding WP:OR. In this case, it means not duplicating theories by un-reliable source, such as faithfreedom (ff). ff is not a reliable source for several reasons. The fact that their sole claim to fame is being ex-Muslims does not equate to being scholar on this topic; they don't even reveal their true identities let alone their credentials. (Also, just because they have created a website does not make their opinion any more reliable than yours or mine). Therefore not worthy of WP. Contrast this with the people who say that beheadings of innocent is Un-Islamic and who say that vigilantism is Un-Islamic; included on this side are people such as Bernard Lewis (PhD, professor at Princeton University and teaching & studying this subject for 60 years) and the biggest group of Muslim clerics from Pakistan, a very influential group in a country of 170 million Muslims and whose business it is to follow God's commandments without being politically correct or incorrect.

Most important test: We need to keep a typical WP user in mind. A typical user comes to WP to get good and reliable info. If ff's and perhaps you feel differently than those reliable sourcers presented here, that's OK with me.

Your point about quoting verse from the Quran is also more of your personal opinion and more O.R. because you are interpreting something. The fact that you as a novice take a verse, you are avoidng the passage of 5-7 verses and therefore its context. If a physics student were to only study one line on page 5, another on page 50, and yet another on page 75, of his or her physics book, you will agree that this student is not going to get an "A" on the test. Do you think that when someone who has no good intentions about Islam cherry-pick a verse truly wants to understand the truth? Or, would someone who has taken the time to read the entire passage and reads volumes of Muslim Jurispudence & interpretation is likely to be more sincere? Even when these people are not Muslims? These are the characteristics of a scholar. 1detour (talk) 04:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Sikh Terrorism

Anyone wishing to take part in contributing to Sikh Terrorism please feel free Morbid Fairy (talk) 21:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Munich

4 September 1972 - Munich Olympic Massacre. is not an religiously motivated and hence it's out of scope--Michael1408 00:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael1408 (talk • contribs)

agree Dr B2 (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment

This article remains filled with errors and has become a coatrack by editors trying their best to portray Islam only in a negative light. For example, this article contains motivations attributed to Islam which are very questionable as well as the list of terrorist attacks which are clearly due to nationalism as well as others done by Palestanian Christians. This vandalism by the Islamophobe editors means that anyone wanting to know the truth should verify the source and verify the references themselves for reliability.1detour (talk) 05:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

There has recently been a great deal of vandalism by Muslim contributors, but I urge them to understand that this is generally a balanced entry and they should contribute only constructively in an effort to better understand Islamic terrorism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.200.143 (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a fairly objective and informative article. It is an important article, but should be reviewed by experts on terrorism. Islamic terrorism, like other forms of extremism, does not exist in a vacuum. This article could, if adequately contributed to, provide an understanding of why Islamic extremism exists, and it thus could provide a valuable resource for those interested in pursuing it further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David matthews (talk • contribs) 23:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the article is objective and fair. The article is far from complete, however. For example the list of Islamic terrorist acts does not mention many acts of terrorism. I think that is because this is a fairly new article. Hopefully, the gaps will be filled in time. It is a useful and important article and should be kept. There should be companion articles also (e.g. Sikh terrorism) so that it does not appear unfair to Muslims. However, Muslims must understand that this is an article meant to provide information on Islamic terrorism and not to demean them in any way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.153.8 (talk) 22:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Attacks

12 October 2000 - USS Cole bombing, 56 killed

A military unit was attacked not a civilan. A terrorist attack is an attack against civilians not military, this is not a terrorist attack.

18 April 1983 - April 1983 U.S. Embassy bombing in Beirut, Lebanon. 63 killed.

This wasn't a terrorist attack, Lebanon was alreayd in turmoil during that time, the target were marines sent recently to Lebanon.

--Michael1408 05:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael1408 (talk • contribs)

There is no definitive definition for terrorism, see [Terrorism and] [Definition of terrorism]. The argument above seems to follow the one that describes terrorism as an act against non-combatants. However these attacks may still fall under some idea of 'unlawful' acts of war and it would be prudent not to exclude them. Their military nature is clear in the article and, whether it falls under "terrorism" or not, they are still relevant to the wider 'conflict'. (Protectthehuman (talk) 14:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC))

I agree with Protectthehuman; if the attacker was say the Yemeni Army or Saudi Army or Russian Army or what have you, I could see it not being considered a terrorist act. However, the fact that it was committed by citizens, I don't see how it could be considered a traditional military attack.jlcoving (talk) 20:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

A Muslim shouting "Allahu Akbar" and then killing 13 people is an act of Islamic terrorism, period. The Fort Hood massacre was Islamic terrorism. Jwbaumann (talk) 05:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It might be easier to discuss this in a new section. Kevin (talk) 06:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Motivation vs. Meditation

The article incorrectly states Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar's motivation. The verses quoted are from his article he wrote about his "meditation" while in jail (AFTER he was arrested for his crime) and not his motivation. His WP article states his motivation, as follows: "In March 2006, Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, an Iranian-born American citizen, confessed to intentionally hitting people with a sport utility vehicle on the campus of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to "avenge the deaths of Muslims worldwide" and to "punish" the United States government. While no one was killed in the attack, nine people were injured (none seriously)."

This is another example of vandalism by some editors quick to jump to conclusion without even reading & understanding the issue just so they can score some points against Islam. 1detour (talk) 05:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The person did it in the name of Islam, and it was clearly an act of jihad.Tallicfan20 (talk) 05:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikisource has the letter he wrote to the police explaining his motivation which I think is pretty unambiguous. [1]. He also expressed the following opinion "people who fight in the cause of Allah are not guilty if and when they have no intention of killing more persons among their enemies than their enemies have killed among the believers.". However, someone could make an argument that he was motivated by mental illness and the CNN piece touchs on that (although he was judged fit for trial). Was the serial killer Peter Sutcliffe 'motivated' by Christianity given that he heard voices from (a Christian) God ? Should he be in Christian Terrorism article ? I don't think Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar is a particular informative example for this article. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

..also of course he was neither charged nor found guilty of terrorism which seems quite important. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that the Meditation is important because it says that the Quran was relevant. 13:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

He also said the Quran is "completely validated by modern science" which is complete nonsense. He probably said all sorts of things. We can't just pick what we want out of documents because it validates preconceived conclusions. Do you not think it is relevant that he was neither charged nor found guilty of terrorism and is therefore not even within scope for this article ? I really can't see any point in including this guy. Why not just stick to the cases where there is a clear connection between an act of 'terrorism' and the use of text from the Quran ? Sean.hoyland - talk 15:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The Meditation is a clear connection between an act of terrorism and the Quran! 16:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

For that statement to be true there needs to have been an act of terrorism. Was there an act of terrorism ? If so who was charged for it, found guilty and sent to prison for commiting an act of terrorism ? There also needs to be a reliable source (i.e. not you) that connects that act of terrorism to the Quran. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

There was an act of terrorism:In one letter, Taheri-azar wrote, "I was aiming to follow in the footsteps of one of my role models, Mohammad Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers, who obtained a doctorate degree." 16:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC) The reliable source is Mohammed Reza Taheriazar who connects that act of terrorism to the Quran. 16:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The whole point of that CNN article is the 'what is an act of terrorism' question which CNN have no jurisdiction over. Taheriazar wasn't charged with commiting an act terrorism therefore he is not relevant to this article. Taheriazar isn't a reliable source for anything. There are plenty of better examples where there is a clear connection between a crime designated as 'an act of terrorism' under a particular countries legal system and use of text from the Quran. Why not forget about Taheriazar and focus on better examples ? It's not like there is a shortage. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Also, remember that WP:V is a mandatory content policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussing - 1st paragraph

Fellow editors:

The 1st paragraph seems to me to be not only violating NPOV, but also very cloogy. Can we discuss it?

For example, let's start with the first sentence:

"Islamic Terrorism is the common term for an alleged ideology of violence[1] associated with Islamic fundamentalism, that claims to defend Islamic culture, society, and values against the political, imperialistic, and cultural influences of non-Muslims, and the Western world in particular.[2][3]"

"...ideology of violence associated with Islamic fundamentalism..." interesting phrase. How is this phrase supported by any reference? All 3 citation[1, 2, or 3], do not support this.

First paragraph is probably the most looked at part of any article. So, improving it will go a long way in improving this article.

Would appreciate your input. 1detour (talk) 23:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Editors tend to overlook the manual of style on the lead. Everyone should freshen up on WP:LEAD. In regards to citations, the lead is a summary so inline citations will not be as prevalent as seen in the main body. This doesn't mean we shouldn't follow the principle of only looking at sourced material of course.

My concerns are:

• "alleged": If it is terrorism it is not alleged violence. It is violence. That is the nature of terrorism. People who send mean letters are not terrorists.
• "Defend" is used which to me seems OK to a certain extent. Does the concern over changing other cultures come into play in this? This may not come across as a main point to many US based editors but many people in Europe and Asia consider what can be labeled as aggressive actions when referring to the subject.
• "Imperialistic" is a strong term with plenty of weight. I personally might agree with it to a certain extent but shouldn't this read "perceived imperialism" to not lead the reader, cut down on what might look as POV pushing, and summarize what can be explained in later text? More importantly, if imperialism is disputed by the primary perpetrators (governments of India, the US, other states seem likely here), it needs to read "perceived". Cptnono (talk) 13:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

External links

Removing the link farming. I actually really linke the Jihad watch one but didn't want to show preference without discussion. Some of these can be used as a sources and should be done so as inline citaitons. See WP:ELNO.

• Islam, Global Politics, and U.S. Foreign Policy, UC Berkeley
• The Ideology of Terrorism and Violence in Saudi Arabia: Origins, Reasons and Solution
• Al Qaeda Training Manual used by British member of Al Qaeda, Manchester, England (URL accessed March 2005)
• An analysis of the word “Islamic terrorism” by Inam Abidi & concluding it to be a fundamental mistake to use it.
• Don't confuse terrorism with Islam, says EU The Telegraph 31 Mar 2007
• Islam 101 by Gregory M. Davis
• Jihad Watch

Cptnono (talk) 04:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we should reestablish the link section. Jihad watch could stay there but I do not like the other links.Clearcrash1 (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I actually really enjoy Jihad Watch. I didn't realize until seeing Jihad Watch that editors have classified it as a blog which limits its inclusion as an external. I don't know how to proceed so any thoughts are appreciated.Cptnono (talk) 22:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

JihadWatch is not fit for inclusion since it doesn't meet WP:ELNO and WP:RS criteria. WP:RS notes that for a blog site, such as JihadWatch: "an opinion piece is reliable only as to the opinion of its author, not as a statement of fact". If Spencer wants credibility of his "articles", he just needs to write facts and not polemics (As pointed by conservative scholars such as Dinesh D'Souza). Spencer can simply submit his articles to respected journals along with reliable sources and if these articles are printed by WP:RS sources, you are welcome to quote them on WP. 1detour (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Can Love Jihad be added?

Love Jihad - alleged activity under which young Muslim boys in Kerala and Coastal Karnataka reportedly targeted college girls belonging to non-Muslim communities for conversion to Islam by feigning love. Yusuf.Abdullah (talk) 17:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Fort Hood Shooting / Massacre

Islamic terrorism is clear when 3 criteria are met: 1) The perpetrator is a devout Muslim, 2) the victims are, by and large, non-Muslim, and 3) the perpetrator yells "Allahu Akbar" prior to killing. The numerous other reports about Major Nidal Hasan's Islamic proselytizing, seeking connections to Al Qeada, sympathizing with / praising suicide bombers, stating he was a Muslim first and American second, number of casualties, etc. simply strengthens the case. Not designating this as Islamic terrorism violates WP:NPOV. The KKK, Nazis, or white supremacists would not be accorded such deference in categorization, despite the hundreds of millions killed by Muslims over the centuries. Perhaps we are too terrified of Muslims to be honest about this? Jwbaumann (talk) 13:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

And now we see reports (and images) that his business card had "SoA(SWT)", which means "Soldier of Allah (Subhanahu wa-ta'ala)". What more evidence do we need? A college paper titled "I will kill infidels for Allah"? Jwbaumann (talk) 15:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Anwar Awlaki is praising this man's actions with this statement: "the only way a Muslim could Islamically justify serving as a soldier in the US army is if his intention is to follow the footsteps of men like Nidal." Pretty much every Muslim commenter on his site is in agreement. Can we list this act as an example of Islamic terrorism now? It's getting pretty embarrassing to keep ignoring the obvious. Jwbaumann (talk) 05:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You only need to comply with WP:V i.e. you just need to bring reliable sources that describe the attack as an act of Islamic terrorism. Arguing from first principals or using logic etc is the wrong approach in Wikipedia because we just go by what the reliable sources say. If sources regarded as reliable within Wikipedia (like the New York Times etc) describe it as an act of Islamic terrorism then so can we, attributing it to them if necessary. If they don't then neither do we. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

As this article is about Islamic terrorism in general, adding an example where the media are still debating whether or not it is a terrorist incident or not is not helpful. In a few weeks the media will likely have formed a general opinion that may be useful for this article. Your assertion above is just original research, your own opinion of what should be classed as terrorism. Kevin (talk) 05:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the WP:V link. I had always suspected Wikipedia wasn't about truth, but I didn't realize that being not about truth was a core value. As to verifiability, that's just another word for consensus, or "everybody's doing it." My mother warned me about that trap ("if everyone jumped off a cliff..."). Having a core policy discounting the value of truth, combined with the very dated view (noted above) that the New York Times is a reliable source of information (I mean really), confirm to me that Wikipedia is institutionally and constitutionally incapable of honesty. Too bad - it's pretty cool technology.Jwbaumann (talk) 05:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

..but it does have a detailed article about Doughnuts so on balance it's part way there. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

History

The list of examples start in 1993. Why no earlier? Шизомби (talk) 05:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Terminology

There has been a claim in the British media that the government has decided to use the term Anti Islamic when refering to extremists who claim to be muslim. However the term Islamic extremist remain widely used by the media although there are British muslims who prefer to use the term Anti Islamic extremist. (Tk420 (talk) 10:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC))

it is so sad that most muslims dont know there own relegion. Most muslims only know a fluffy wuffy version of their relegion, with pixies and fairies and tea parties. In my view the terrorist have more understanding about islam than anyone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misconceptions2 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Zaik Nakir quote

I have removed this quote for the second time for two reasons:

1. It is irrelevant to the subject - The policeman is the terrorist for the robber? Sophomoric and irrelevant.
2. The sources are entirely unreliable per WP:SOURCES. One of the sources is a website named ILoveZaikNakir which is blatantly promotional and hardly of any academic value or reliability. The second is from an article posted on SCRIBD a site at which anyone can post anything. Do not revert my edits you will be entering into a edit war and could then be in violation of the WP:3RR rule. Supertouch (talk) 19:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

added the quotes back because there are 5 references for 1 quote. pelase discuss if you have a problem with it.

Notne of thereferences are from a reliable source. deleted againCathar11 (talk) 00:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Title of the article

Doesn't the title of the article violate NPOV? It uses a very loaded term which could lead people to think that Islam itself is terrorist in nature. The term itself is considered derogatory and Islamophobic by many people. The article should be renamed to something like "Muslim extremist political violence" or "Islamist political violence"; in the same way that Zionist political violence and Palestinian political violence are so named.

The use of the label is not meant to be pejorative. The article certainly isn't written in a manner that slanders the religion. "Acts of violence to strike fear in the perceived enemies of the states who predominantly use Islam in the name of said religion by a minority of followers of the religion" is less catchy if you prefer.Cptnono (talk) 16:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Also see section above Sean.hoyland - talk 16:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the title is supposed to be pejorative, I'm just saying that the title itself probably violates NPOV because of its use of a very controversial term. Furthermore, renaming it to something like "Muslim extremist political violence" or "Islamist political violence" would be more NPOV than it is now. Also, no offense, but quite a few areas in the article need a makeover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knight Prince - Sage Veritas (talk • contribs) 17:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that is offensive to anyone. The article could cover plenty more. I brought up pejorative since that is one of the concerns with the term NPOV wise. Since it is stating a fact I don't see a concern. Take a look at WP:NAME where it clearly states that we should be using common terms for subject matter. "Terrorism" is used often from scholars, writers, politicians, joe schmo, etc. It is also interesting that this page is mentioned in on the naming conventions guideline page.Cptnono (talk) 01:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that its supposed to be pejorative. And it probably is offensive to many people in the world. I'm saying that the title is biased because, to someone in the world reading this, it may look like the title is linking Islam with terrorism. Furthermore, if Zionist political violence and Palestinian political violence are so named, then the title here could be different. Or, we could replace the word "Islamic" with other more suitable words. Many people in the world would view the current title as derogatory and Islamophobic (I'm not saying it is). Anyhow, the title, as it is right now, should be replaced with something more suitable.Knight Prince - Sage Veritas (talk) 01:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see the numerous threads discussing this, both in the archives and earlier on this page. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The word "terrorism" is not the problem, it is the word "Islamic". The terrorism discussed on this page is "Islamic" in that it is carried out by Muslims, but it is more properly called "Islamist" terrorism. nableezy - 20:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:NAME clearly states that Articles are named as precisely as is necessary to indicate their scope accurately If we have a choice between calling it Islamic Terrorism or Islamist Terrorism, the precise title would be Islamist Terrorism. And to Cptnono's point, Islamism is also a common term.1detour (talk) 00:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive, meaning that we write about things the same way that people talk about them. There is no question at all that the most common term in modern usage is "Islamic Terrorism", therefore it is perfectly appropriate as an article title. Doc Tropics 14:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree entirely with 1detour. Islamist is a much better choice of name. Doc Tropics's argument word be worth contemplating if no one ever used the word Islamist. However, the word is quite common so there is no excuse for not using it. Yaris678 (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I say we apply the very same standard that we apply to the various hagiographies to Islam under the titles of Islamic science and Islamic inventions and Islamic Mathematics posing as neutral Wikipedia articles. The reasoning there is that even though the people involved may not be Muslims or Arabs, their work is to the credit of Islam simply because some guys with swords brought those inventors under the dominion of some warlord caliph through invasion and forced conversion. If Islam wants to claim credit for everything good that happens within its territorial boundaries, every idea that someone comes up with, whether it was inspired by Islam or not, then Islam needs to take credit for the bad things that the people doing them ARE claimed to be inspired by the teachings of Islam.KartoumHero (talk) 22:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said. "Islamist" is a better word than "Islamic" in this context. If you can think of a better term than "Islamic mathematics" then please suggest it. Yaris678 (talk) 12:39, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I am an Arab and I am a Muslim and I am definitely offended by the article's name. Read post 15 for further information about this. Let's change it to Islamist. CantoV (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Reliable Source discussion

A discussion has been started on the reliable sources noticeboard] concerning the reliability of Rodney J. Phillips' book The Muslim Empire and the Land of Gold. All interested editors are encouraged to participate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

ХАМАС

This looks a bit like an edit war.

• (cur) (prev) 09:37, 15 January 2010 Razimantv (talk | contribs) (90,056 bytes) (not undue - actually important when Russian president states that an org considered terrorist by US is not so. and not saying someone is a terrorist is different from saying someone is not a terrorist) (undo)
• (cur) (prev) 19:58, 14 January 2010 Breein1007 (talk | contribs) (89,690 bytes) (please review WP:UNDUE - discussion is not needed) (undo)
• (cur) (prev) 12:02, 14 January 2010 Supertouch (talk | contribs) m (90,056 bytes) (Undid revision 337751396 by Breein1007 (talk) Restored referenced material - discuss before removing something based upon cont) (undo)
• (cur) (prev) 06:24, 14 January 2010 Breein1007 (talk | contribs) (89,690 bytes) (it's not necessary to say who doesn't consider them... we have a list of who does. therefore, the rest dont.) (undo)
• (cur) (prev) 02:41, 14 January 2010 Supertouch (talk | contribs) m (90,056 bytes) (→Hamas) (undo)

Why not discuss on talk ? I'll start you off.

• On the one hand a number of RS have mentioned that the Russian gov don't classify Hamas as a terrorist org. I wonder what their position is on al-Qassam Brigades ?
• On the other hand, stating the countries that haven't designated Hamas as a terrorist org isn't necessary or consistent with other articles.

Sean.hoyland - talk 13:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Was there such a long history? I think we need to start talking. My claim is that Putin saying that Hamas is not a terrorist organization is significant enough to be here under the discussion of Hamas as a terrorist organization. Could someone please explain WP:UNDUE in this context? -- Raziman T V (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems that WP:UNDUE is being cited in reference to the fact that Putin's stance is in the minority. If you read the documentation of UNDUE carefully, Jim Wales distinguishes between significant minority and an insignificant one. In my opinion, this would fall under the former--a significant majority due to the fact that several countries were mentioned first clarifying the majority opinion and then mentioning Russia, a sizable country. Supertouch (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Since the vast majority of sovereign states don't classify Hamas as a terrorist org I guess those that do form the significant minority. I wasn't sure what Breein1007 was getting at either by citing UNDUE. He has a point about not listing those that don't but Russia's classification has been deemed to be of sufficient weight to get a mention in several RS that I've seen (inc BBC). I'm not sure whether it matters much either way. Mentioning Russia's position adds a bit more info I suppose. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with not listing the nations that don't consider an organization to be terrorist. Not saying someone is a terrorist is one thing. Saying in public that this is not a terrorist organization is totally different -- Raziman T V (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Automatic archiving

Anyone know how to set up the automatic archiving for this page? There are some really old discussions in here. I'd say the ideal period of inactivity would be 30 days.--JokerXtreme (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed--Oneiros (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggested addition

It should be noted somewhere in the article that Christanic terrorism is equal to Islamic terrorism in all respects. Indeed, it should be noted in the article thatone can easily replace the word "Islam" with "Christian" and the article accurately describes Christanic terrorism. Fredric Rice (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

That's whats so paradoxical about putting a word before terrorism. Be it from any religion or race or gender it doesn't really matter because the actual meaning of terrorism does not specify those factors and the acts that are committed by a terrorist negate what religion, race, or gender the terrorist is. I think that Terrorism should have just one article on wikipedia and we just merge all the types of terrorism (with correct naming of course, of which this article is not correctly named). CantoV |talk 20:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Frederic Rice - except that a) theres no where near enough Christian terror attacks as Islamic attacks, and not on the scale in that you have dozens of countries fighting it, or in that it has committed a massacre of 3000 civilians, nor in any passage in the New Testament remotely referring to war, other than a condemnation of it. Gabr-el 04:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Well defining terrorism itself has proven troublesome. Quoting the Terrorism article: "At present, the International community has been unable to formulate a universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism." This is mainly because it was difficult to come up with a definition of terrorism that would exclude acts of powerful nations, but include acts of minor nations. The same thing happened with the Nuremberg trials. Convicted crimes in Nuremberg were pretty much chosen to exclude atrocities committed by the Allies. Bombing civilians and civilian facilities (hospitals and such) were not considered war crimes, because the Allies did it too on an everyday basis for quite some time. If bombing civilians is not terrorism, then what is? But it all comes down to victor's justice. The "Christian" West has its share of terrorism, yet more elaborate and more concealed. And the so-called Islamic Terrorism is itself more of a political and cultural thing than religious. --JokerXtreme (talk) 09:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I nominated both Islamic and Christian terrorism for deletion, along with Jewish and Hindu terrorism, because I don't think it's been established that the terrorisms are Islamic, Christian, Jewish, or Hindu; even if the terrorists say they themselves are. I withdrew the nomination because, at least, the expression "Islamic terrorism" is notable. I said I would nominate the other 3 for deletion on their own. I am leaning towards not doing this because it would make it look like I was denying that members of those faiths could also be terrorists. That's not what I had in mind. Of course members of all religions, and atheists too, can do violent acts. I understand that the other articles were partly put in for fairness and I think that's a good thing. See; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic terrorism (now withdrawn) for more discussion. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

There was I believe unanimous support (other than the nom) for keeping this article. So I applaud your saving editors' time by withdrawing the nom. The other cats -- which I also voted to keep -- garnered large though less than unanimous support for "keeps". You should feel free to re-nom those, as others have suggested (separately). But I (for one) will still vote keep for both of them. I don't believe they are needed for parity (given the otherstuffexists guidance). But because they have referenced applicable material. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to waste any more of people's time on these articles. I will continue to believe that terrorist acts are not Islamic, Christian, Jewish, or Hindu (or even atheist); even if the terrorists might belong to these groups. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Political violence unrelated

I noticed many 'example of attacks' are not related to Islam, but were just added since it was perpetuated by a Muslim, such as "27 March 2002 – Suicide bomb attack on a Passover Seder in a Hotel in Netanya, Israel. 30 dead, 133 injured."

That has nothing to do with Islam, that is political violence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.201.1.30 (talk) 19:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Surveys

I just rolled back a deletion of survey data by another editor, figured I'd make a note here in case there is any objection. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} The following sentence was removed in this edit explaining that it was not sourced -("Islamic terrorism is often inspired by numerous Qur'an verses that justify or encourage attacks on non-Muslims or those who may not be regarded as pious"). I request to re-add that sentence with the following citations

• "The Left and Fitna". AINA. 2008-04-09. Retrieved 2010-06-10. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• Qu'ran (8.39): "Fight until there are no more unbelievers (non-Muslims) and tumult; if they accept Islam then leave them alone."
• Qu'ran (47.4): "When the believers meet the unbelievers they should smite at unbelievers’ necks"

Since, this can be challenged on a frequent basis, I request editors to add more citations. 117.204.83.251 (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Not done: {{edit semi-protected}} is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. Not sure if there is a better way to draw attention to this concern, though. You may try the {{uninvolved}} tag or maybe a mini-Request for Comment. ^Avicenna_sis @ 18:38, 28 Sivan 5770 / 10 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done 27.57.140.105 (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Osama Bin Laden

Why is there no picture of Osama Bin Laden in this article entitled Islamic terrorism? Isn't he the poster child for this topic? Instead we have a picture of Abdullah Azzam. He was certainly an important figure in Islamic terrorism, but one would think that Osama Bin Laden takes the cake for this topic? --CABEGOD (talk) 05:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

"Barnyard animals"

I've deleted the comment under the "Profiles" section that reads:

Have, as intelligence picked up by Predator drones and other battlefield cameras show, sexual intercourse with barnyard animals and one another.

Although this is backed up by the references given, ISTM that this allegation should not be included:

1. This is at best secondhand information (not from a primary source)
2. It completely fails WP:VERIFY - there's absolutely no way whatsoever to confirm this
3. It is deeply suspicious. ISTM that even if the claimed "U.S. officials" specified in the references (who, exactly?! This is hardly WP:RS material!) had made such a assertion (irrespective of whether it's true or not), they most certainly have an inherent interest in promoting ad hominen attacks and propaganda against Islamic terrorists!

Further, as it stood previously, the article stated that "many of the islamic terrorists" have sex with animals - however, the references given do not support this claim.

IMHO, this is purely sensationalist and biased. In context, googling for "state animal sex farmer arrested" results in some 68,100 hits, which would suggest that a similar "recreational activity" isn't just restricted to Islamic terrorists, but does go on in the US as well - but it would similarly be idiotic to suggest that most US citizens are sheep shaggers! Nuwewsco (talk) 00:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The sentence never said "many of the islamic terrorists" before you did a list format so I'm putting back the previous wording. It is verifiable enough (two sources given). "Predator drones and other battlefield cameras" is clear enough. If Daniel Byman, a Middle East expert at the Brookings Institute, and Christine Fair, an assistant professor in peace and security studies at Georgetown University, perfectly qualified people to talk about islamic terrorism, find it relevant to talk a lot about this subject in their article on islamists, it's relevant enough in this article.--Chrono1084 (talk) 01:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from here, but I think it should be rephrased at least. I'm not suggesting things like this don't go on, but the way it's written suggests that this is the norm, as opposed to something carried out by a minority

Perhaps changing:

"Intelligence picked up by Predator drones and other battlefield cameras show terrorists having sexual intercourse with barnyard animals and one another"

to:

"Intelligence picked up by Predator drones and other battlefield cameras has even shown terrorists having sexual intercourse with barnyard animals and one another"

would be better? This still conveys the facts accurately, but without suggesting something the citation doesn't actually say? Nuwewsco (talk) 21:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Source of comments from "ex-terrorist, Abu Baçir El Assimi"

Does anyone have any other sources for the comments from "Abu Baçir El Assimi"? The original source for this information seems to be The Sun[2], the story having then been picked up and reprinted by other publications - including the source given - for example:

• http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/129794
• http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-11023.html/
• http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/275122

Is The Sun the most reliable source for this information? Nuwewsco (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

You're wrong Ennahar Online's article is dated 11 January, 2009 and The Sun's is date 4 February 2009 so The Sun can't have been the original source at least for ennaharonline. Your wish to censor my contributions are pushing you not to even check basic facts like the ones in the previous section and in this one.--Chrono1084 (talk) 01:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

You're right about the dates! Not sure how I missed that. You can see my point though; it's not uncommon for one publication to go to print with a story, which then gets picked up by other papers. I wonder why it look so long for all the others to pick up on it?! From the examples I found above, they seem to have been following The Sun here?!! Bizarre - or maybe just google giving me scewed results? I'd have thought they'd be quicker off the ball - one month after initial publication is not something I'd call "news"!

Chrono1084 - please, don't take things personally! I'm not out to censor anyone here; the Wikipedia is a cooperative effort! I'm certainly likely to challenge things which look like they're wrong, or skewed to misrepresent things in some way (e.g. see my comments re "Barnyard animals" above), but censorship on the Wikipedia just doesn't work IMHO! Nuwewsco (talk) 21:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

israelnationalnews.com is run by Arutz Sheva, not exactly what I would regard as a WP:V compliant, reliable, third-party (independent), published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy when it comes to these issues. I also suggest that the 'Lorne Gunter (June 25, 2010). "Islam’s new Puritans". National Post. http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/25/lorne-gunter-islams-new-puritans/' source is removed from the section just above. It's an opinion piece being used as a source for statements of fact and WP:V compliance for the material is already provided by the Atlantic source. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Nationalpost removed.--Chrono1084 (talk) 01:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Examples of attacks section

Re the "Examples of attacks" section - could we have some criteria for inclusion in this list? (e.g. A comment at the start of the section). I really don't know what critia could possibly be used though:

• The number of people killed? This would just make it sensationalist, and not provide a representative example
• The most famous bombings? This may be better, but again wouldn't provide a representative example
• One example for each year since 1993 (when the list starts)? This seems like a better compromise - but also smacks of being fairly arbitary!

At present, the list is just far, far, too long for an "examples" list. IMHO it may be better to split it off into another page of it's own ("List of attacks involving Islamic terrorism"?), which would also allow a more comprehensive listing that could just be linked to from this page in the "See also" section. Nuwewsco (talk) 20:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Add Hamas and Hezbollah to first paragraph

As they engage in non stop terrorism add them to the front.Unicorn76 (talk) 19:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Gallup Poll

Source 179 is referred to EIGHT times, and claims to be the result of SIX YEARS' worth of work, but is completely missing. So many people have looked for it that "gallup poll on-humanitarian grounds killings 2001 2007" is a suggested search term on Google. Can *anyone* find this highly controversial poll? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.26.39 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Quotes for section: Views of Islamic Clerics

Hi , I was trying to find a way to avoid the quotes but I do believe at least some of the quotes are needed. I had added some quotes but were reverted, so my question is if it would be ok to add a smaller amount of quotes. This is what I have in mind:

Abd_al-Aziz Ibn Baz states:

- "It is well-known to anyone with the slightest amount of common sense that hijacking planes and kidnapping embassy officials and similar acts are some of the greatest universal crimes that result in nothing but widespread corruption and destruction. They place such extreme hardships and injuries upon innocent people, the extent of which only Allāh knows."

Ibn al-Uthaymeen states regarding killing a non-Muslim:

- "As for a non-Muslim living under Muslim rule and a Mu’āhid (a Non-Muslim ally with whom Muslims have a treaty, trust, peace, or agreement), it’s been authentically established that the prophet ( blessings and peace upon him ) said: “Whoever kills a Mu’āhid will not even smell the fragrance of paradise and its fragrance can be smelled from the distance of forty years away.” and he also said: “Certainly, one of the most difficult situations for which there is no turning back for whomever casts himself into it - shedding sacred blood without right.”

Eyrryds (talk) 22:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add that although quotes should have proper context, in this the quotes fit in directly just from the title of the section: views of islamic clerics. Perhaps a bit more of an introduction but honestly I find that these quotes fit right in in this section, as are. Eyrryds (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The best way I think to go about it would be something along the lines of "Many Islamic scholars, such as Scholar X, disagree with the religious justification for terrorism. Scholar X states: blah blah" with a citation. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 21:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good Falcon8765 If no more comments are added I will give it a shot soon. Eyrryds (talk) 02:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Another example

MArch 2010 Machete-Wielding Islamic Terrorists Slaughter Hundreds Of Christians In A Town In Central Nigeria http://themostimportantnews.com/archives/machete-wielding-islamic-terrorists-slaughter-hundreds-of-christians-in-a-town-in-central-nigeria —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.54.142.128 (talk) 07:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Map is outdated and in need of update

On the small map listed to the right in the Organizations and acts section showing Countries in which Islamist terrorist attacks have occurred on or after September 11, 2001, this map needs to be updated with China and Uganda also coloured in red as both these countries have been attacked by Islamic terrorists as well. There may be other nations that also need colouring in red too. It would be beneficial if this map could be updated. John10001 (talk) 01:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC) Additional: This is a direct link to the outdated map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:War_on_terror_attack_map.svg Iran also needs to be coloured in red as well as they have also had internal attacks against the state from groups linked to Al Qaeda such as The Sunni Muslim Jundollah militant group which are the most active terrorist group within Iran. Source: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20101012/tpl-uk-iran-military-blast-aa3debf.html (Reuters 2010) This is a link to an updated jpeg with Uganda, China and Iran also coloured red however the original author may wish to produce a better quality image that isn't compressed and is keeping in line with the original: http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e259/john10001/gwot/listofcountriesattackedbyIslamonandafter911updated121010.jpg Further Sources: John10001 (talk) 21:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Am I the only one who is troubled that there are many sources here with claims about Islam by people who openly reject Islam? I have deleted many elements today with links to claims by such people where the link is not working... but even if the links were working, what can possibly be the value or reliability of these sources? If I wanted to find out about the beliefs of, for example, Christianity, I would not want to look at sources that were hostile to that religion or pay too much attention to the odd quote taken from the Bible made to look like it represented the whole of Christianity. Look for example at Numbers 15:33-36. It would give you an entirely false perspective.--Hauskalainen (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I cannot imagine how anyone can claim that Bill Warner is a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia and nor for that matter can his "center" for the study of political Islam be taken seriously - it has zero credentials and as far as I can see no academic backing. By his own admission he has a very one sided view of Islam as a political force... Neither is he notable. That means that we cannot take his assertions about the faith or the political motives of Islam and the messages of the Koran very seriously. I am annoyed to say the least that certain editors tried to revert edits I made to the article without even addressing the issue I have raised here at the Talk page. If this continues I may have to take further action against such editors for breach of the rules.--Hauskalainen (talk) 12:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Islamic or Islamist terrorism

I have just run into this article, author insists that the term "Islamic terrorism" is wrong, the correct one would be "Islamist terrorism". Any idea?-- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 17:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The use if "Islamist" to indicate someone with a strict or fundamental belief in Islam is I think rather recent. But then I am quite old! There is nothing intrinsic about the word Islamist that makes it so. I happen to think that even the word "terrorist" is wrong or at least ambiguous... One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.... I have not followed the link you gave but I am familiar with the argument that Islamist terrorism better describes the action of those seeking a more political Islam. Personally I think its all politics and neither label is appropriate because it puts religion at the center of the acts of violence labeled as "terrorism" when mostly religion is usually a side issue. Islam, like Christianity is mostly a religion of peace and tolerance and not compatible with violence. The 9/11 attacks are a good example.... this was a political act and religion was not the driver of the violence any more than America's keeping of military bases in Saudi Arabia and sale of weapons to and support for Israel (the root cause of the 9/11 attacks as stated by those alleged to have been involved in that plot) was a religious act. They are political acts pure and simple. And language is a tool in the war of ideas. If the western media started calling the bulldozing of homes in Gaza "Jewish terrorism" there would be an outcry. It is a violent act in a political conflict carried out by people of the Jewish faith but religion is not their main motive It is a political act. Same with most "Islamic" or "Islamist" "terrorism". --Hauskalainen (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for you comments. And, if I am not wrong, tell me if I am, that you are more inclined to favour the term "Islamic" over "Islamist", right?-- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 16:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Your interpretation of my opinion is WRONG. Terrorism is contra to Islam. Therefore it wrong to call it Islamic. This article is as much an insult to people of the Islamic faith as I am sure the article Christian terrorism is to Christians. If Islamist in English has come to mean an extreme form of Islam then Islamist is a better attribute.--Hauskalainen (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It is good that I have asked for clarification. I think, then, it is better to rename the article into Islamist Terrorism. And one more comments, the leading section of the article says "...acts of terrorism committed by an extreme minority of Muslims...", I am not sure if the "extreme minority" is appropriate to use taking into account the neutrality principle in wiki, it is better to attribute as "comitted by fanatical adherents of Islam". What do you think?-- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 18:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Whether you or I like it or not, the term that has come to be used by respectable writers as well as less respectable ones is "Islamic Terrorism". Google search finds four times as many references to Islamic terrorism than to Islamist Terrorism. We have to reflect usage and so lets do it and just mention in the article, fairly early on why some people find it inappropriate. If your references meets WP criteria then add it to the article showing that some people argue that Islamist Terrorism is a more appropriate term. I take your point about about extreme .... I meant it to refer to the smallness of the minority and not a value judgmeent on their beliefs.--Hauskalainen (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Let me disagree with you. The google search and frequency of usage of 'Islamic terrorism' or 'Islamist terrorism' is not an indicator, since the usage of terms in internet can be wrong and 95% of sources are not respectful sources (blogs, chats, non field specialised articles and etc.) Moreover, I am sure that many do not understand the difference between 'islamic' and 'islamist' and therefore use the wrong one. I propose to name the article as it is used by Britannica, Oxford, Webster's and other highly respectful sources and by scholars. I must say, that we should to use the correct term and not as it is being used by internet community. Here is what Britannica says[3]: "Because the term fundamentalism is Christian in origin, because it carries negative connotations, and because its use in an Islamic context emphasizes the religious roots of the phenomenon while neglecting the nationalistic and social grievances that underlie it, many scholars prefer to call Islamic fundamentalists “Islamists” and to speak of “Islamist movements”..." (we can create a re-direct from 'islamic' to 'islamist', so that someone enters search 'islamic' would be re-directed to the correct 'islamist' term)-- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 16:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

And I would oppose this. If you read the link you gave us it says the following

"Because the term fundamentalism is Christian in origin, because it carries negative connotations, and because its use in an Islamic context emphasizes the religious roots of the phenomenon while neglecting the nationalistic and social grievances that underlie it, many scholars prefer to call Islamic fundamentalists “Islamists” and to speak of “Islamist movements” instead of Islamic fundamentalism. (The members of these movements refer to themselves simply as Muslims.) Nevertheless, the term Islamic fundamentalism has been current in both popular and scholarly literature since the late 20th century. This article, therefore, will occasionally follow this common usage.

And so it is with Islamic Terrorism. It is the more common usage even though scholars find it incorrect. In my humble opinion I think it is only slightly less wrong to use the term "Islamist terrorism" because presumably there will be people who are rightly labelled as Islamists (for their hard line on matters of faith) who are NOT terrorists and who would abhor violence. Perhaps also there are people commit acts of terror who are Muslims but who are not fundamentalists. To my perception there was nothing particularly Islamist in the faith of Mohammad Sidique Khan as far as we can tell. He does not seem more extreme in matters of faith OTHER THAN he was prepared to kill and be killed for a cause. If you listen to the tape made by another of the bombers it is clear that this was a political act, just as the acts of terrorism by Catholic IRA members in London were political acts and not religious acts. So called Islamic or Oslamist terrorism is often a political act and not a religious one.

Again as to usage, Britannia admits to following the common usage and NOT the scholarly usage when they conflic and we should do the same here. But Britannica does do what I say we should do also. That is we use the common term and then say why scholars find it wrong.--Hauskalainen (talk) 19:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I think there is misunderstanding about Britannica's standing related to the term, when it says that it "will occasionally follow this common usage" means that "islamist" will be used mostly, but SOMETIMES (occasionally) it would use "common usage". In other words "islamist" is a default word for Britannica, and "islamic" is of secondary usage. So here in this article we might want to use the Britannica's approach.-- Jim Fitzgerald ^post 17:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Sidebars

Am I the only one who thinks that the two secondary sidebars here are compiled seemingly with the intent of pushing a POV? It seems to me that one gives encyclopedic credence to the idea that there is such a thing as "Islamic Terrorism" (as opposed to terrorism that is conducted by persons who happen to be Muslims) and that the other "criticisms of Islam" sidebar, seems to want to imply that there is something to criticize. I wonder how a "criticism of Christianity" sidebar would fare on a page devoted to some aspect of Christian doctrine? I am not a Muslim myself, but if I was I would be rather upset by the presence of these sidebars seemingly showing an encyclopedia ascribing "Terrorism" and "Criticism" to my faith. I have come across other articles similar to this one where sidebars were deemed to be POV pushing and I got them removed after some discussion at POV Noticeboard. This seems to me to be another example of the same thing.--Hauskalainen (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Digging deeper into the issue of one of the sidebars I see that it was created by a An administrator who was so controversial in his editing that he received a one year ban from editing Wipkipedia... in an almost unanimous decision. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Stevertigo_2--Hauskalainen (talk) 17:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

@User:Doc Tropics. You added back the Islamic Terrorism sidebar and I have removed it. If Islamic Terrorism is such a contentious (and I would say almost blasphemous) term, it is surely unencyclopedic to go and create a indexed list of articles relating to a contentious term which thus gives it a credibility it does not deserve. The sidebar for example includes terms such as jihad. But as every Muslim knows, jihad is something that Muslims practice every day. It is not a term relating to terrorism. If Wikipedia allows this, it is guilty of distorting a truth. This is not what Wikipedia is there to do. I would suggest that if you really do think there are articles that ARE relevant to this subject, they should be added to the See Also list and then we can think about them individually. Most related subjects, if they have any relevance, should be weaved into the text. We should not give prominence to articles in a dubious context which only reinforce misconceptions about Íslam. --Hauskalainen (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

wikipedia doesn't have any rules against blasphemy. lets leave the template in the article until the TfD you started is concluded. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Leaving it in place until after the TfD makes sense to me. I say "Let the Wookie win." Doc Tropics 00:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

"Criticism of Religion"

I don't see any particuar reason to link this article with that endnote, "Criticism of Religion". Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades Inclusion

I'm rather confused why the AAMB are mentioned at all in this article considering they are a secular organisiation. If anyone can justify its inclusion I'd be interested to hear your opinion. 86.156.134.29 (talk) 14:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right, Al Aqsa is a secular coalition of Palestinian nationalists. While most members are Muslim, religion is not a primary motivating or organizing factor, politics is. I've removed the item from the article; thanks for pointing it out. Doc Tropics 16:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

bin Laden in lead

Can we remove the sentence about bin Laden from the lead? Rather than a particular case, the lead should introduce generalities and principles, not focus on one man. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 16:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. In fact, the entire intro should really be rewritten; it doesn't come close to being an accurate summary of the article's content. Doc Tropics 17:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I had a stab at it, let's see what people think. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Much better! You've provided a good overview and more complete summary; most of the major topics get at least a brief mention now. Good work :) Doc Tropics 21:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

This new opening is a fine attempt at a revision, but it's entirely unsourced and contains debatable claims. This part is particularly troubling and unclear: "The ideology which gives rise to Islamic terrorism is the understanding of jihad as an external struggle against non-Muslims, and it is tied to Islamism." By comparison, the previous long-standing version offered a clear and succinct overview of the the different major explanations and definitions of such terrorism. More importantly, it was sourced. I'm going to try to meld the two versions. Dmalveaux (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

This sentence was also a problem, especially since it was unsourced: "The reaction to Islamic terrorism has been mixed among the Muslim population at-large." Dmalveaux (talk) 13:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed new section: Islamic Terrorism In Popular Culture

Should we not have this section in the article, to include the Muzzie Quiz, the You Might Be A Muslim jokes, etc.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.25.87 (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be worthwhile if you could find some article that analyzes how Islamic terrorism is handled in and became part of pop culture, but I would not want another "In Popular Culture" section that simply lists every mention of the term in television or film. Quigley (talk) 00:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Certainly not. Lists of episodes of TV shows and movies are in many articles, but I think they don't belong in an encyclopedia. However, now that you mention it, that's probably what it would become. 24.27.25.87 (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)Eric

Interpretations of the Qur'an and Hadith

According to Abul Kasem, an ex-Muslim and author of hundreds of articles and several books on Islam, Islamic terrorism is inspired by the sources of Islam: the Qur'an verses, ahadith sira and sharia that justify or encourage attacks on non-Muslims or those who may not be regarded as pious. The Qur'an verses are:

Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly. ^{[Quran 8:60]}

Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain. ^{[Quran 47:4]}

And fight them until there’s no fitnah (polytheism) and religion is wholly for Allah.^{[Quran 8:39]}

Lo! Those who disbelieve Our revelations, We shall expose them to the Fire. As often as their skins are consumed We shall exchange them for fresh skins that they may taste the torment. Lo! Allah is ever Mighty, Wise. ^{[Quran 4:56]}

They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them, ^{[Quran 4:89]}

Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Faith Fight in the cause of Evil: So fight ye against the friends of Satan: feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan. ^{[Quran 4:76]}

Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them." ^{[Quran 8:12]}

According to Syed Kamran Mirza, Muhammad said in one hadith: "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand." Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220

Furthermore Muhammad said in another hadith: "Nobody who dies and finds good from Allah (in the Hereafter) would wish to come back to this world even if he were given the whole world and whatever is in it, except the martyr who, on seeing the superiority of martyrdom, would like to come back to the world and get killed again (in Allah's Cause)." Volume 4, Book 52, Number 53

and another relevant hadith: A man came to Allah's Apostle and said, "Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad (in reward)." He replied, "I do not find such a deed." Then he added, "Can you, while the Muslim fighter is in the battle-field, enter your mosque to perform prayers without cease and fast and never break your fast?" The man said, "But who can do that?" Abu- Huraira added, "The Mujahid (i.e. Muslim fighter) is rewarded even for the footsteps of his horse while it wanders bout (for grazing) tied in a long rope." Volume 4, Book 52, Number 44

This should be added because the two ex-muslims show scripture which is used by the islamic terrorists! 79.209.69.41 (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Muslim Cleric Views

The first quoted scholar, Muhammad ibn al Uthaymeen, does not actually condemn terrorism. He states that those non-Muslims who live under Islamic rule (the Dhimmi, who have submitted to Sharia rule and pay the poll-tax) and those who are Mu'ad (have signed a treaty, pact or hudna with the Muslims) are not to be harmed. Americans in the World Trade Center fall into neither of these categories. So the claim in the article that his statement is a "notable example" of "proofs against the religious justification of terrorism" doesn't seem to hold water (the author also seems to confuse "proofs" with "evidence"). 99.231.200.55 (talk) 04:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It is a condemnation of domestic terrorism. Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Islamic or Islamist?

It may be that the term 'Islamist terrorism' is replacing 'Islamic ..'. The Economist seems to be taking it up (nearly parity of references in 2011, compared with much rarer usage of 'Islamist' previously. The clear indication is that the terrorism is political rather than religious. Let's keep an eye on usage and developments, with a view to possibly changing the name of this article. Ranmore (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I have seen the term "Ìslamist terrorism" used in various sources, and it is a re-direct to this page. I do not see however that it is used more than Islamic terrorism. Another term used is "Islamic religious terrorism". TFD (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Background

The article needs a section describing the historical context and development of different kinds of Islamic terrorism.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

The lead includes none of the many scholars in the body that argues that Islam is neither more or less prone to supporting terrorism than other religions. The article also doesn't adequately problematize the concepts of "islamic" and "terrorism". It has an unfortunate he said - she said structure, that doesn't gives a supecicial appearance of neutrality, but which in fact only camouflages an incoherent article structure that isn't clear about its own assumptions. ·Maunus·ƛ· 20:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. We need a properly sourced definition. TFD (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I just made an edit to the lede in an effort toward NPOV. There's a LOT more that needs to be said in the article before it can be passed of as unbiased. Editor bias is often revealed in which facts are selectively ignored, as with the original Al Qaeda training manual having been written in the United States by a US Army Special Operations instructor.--Tdadamemd (talk) 08:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's my edit, that got quickly reverted for the stated reason of the source being not reliable:

Under the Reagan administration, the United States had supported Islamic Jihad with billions of dollars in weapons and training. Osama bin Laden himself had been trained by the CIA. The US did not label the Mujahideen (those doing Jihad) as terrorists during the period it was funding them. Reagan referred to them as Freedom Fighters, and had met with Mujahideen leaders in the White House.

I expect that it won't be too hard to find a more solid source to get this re-added with. Maybe even a .gov source?--Tdadamemd (talk) 11:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I also noticed that removal. The only thing I have is a YouTube video that a CIA official admits that Bin Laden was a CIA agent (the interview was after 9/11). Hope someone can find sources as you said, than we might take a direct quote from the video. AdvertAdam ^talk 17:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

"Many Muslims object to the term because it juxtaposes Islam (which they would regard as a peaceful religion) with a contrary concept. "

This appears under the "Debate over terminology" section and I would like to direct you to WP:WEASEL WORDS. There are no opinion polls cited verifying this claim and I don't think this adds any useful information to the article. I will remove this sentence unless anyone objects and explains to me why it is necessary this sentence be included. Anon12356 (talk) 12:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Please don't touch the sentence, according to Jihad#Usage_of_the_term. The citation is really interesting. I read it myself, and actually wrote a report about it at my University. It's important to mention the statement, as all these terror organizations don't even represent 1% of the Muslim population. AdvertAdam ^talk 18:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that Jihad or the usage of the term has anything to do with this sentence. I certainly don't think you can verify your claim that "all these terror organizations don't even represent 1% of the Muslim population." unless you are aware of some polling done on the Muslim population that I am not aware of. More importantly the claim made and I believe that needs a citation and verification is "Many Muslims object to the term because it juxtaposes Islam (which they would regard as a peaceful religion) with a contrary concept". This says nothing about how many feel their views are represented by terrorists or anything about the usage of the term "Jihad". I ask of you or anyone to either remove this sentence or add a citation to back up the claim and remove the weasel word with a real statistic. Anon12356 (talk) 11:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

robert spencer in lede

1. is robert spencer a notable person to be mentioned here?
2. is this line correct "Others, such as Robert Spencer on Jihad Watch,[8] argue that Islamic terrorism is based on a religious misunderstanding of jihad, as a struggle against non-Muslims, and tie it to Islamism." because i thought robert spencer was anti-islam and believed the opposite?

I'm actually going to agree with you - Spencer asks the question as to whether they have misunderstood Jihad but concludes that they haven't and have a stronger liturgical basis, which was not the point of the sentence. Thanks. He might be worth adding to the article elsewhere as he is certainly notable however. Reichsfürst (talk) 01:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010923jihad0923p5.asp - Jeremiah McAuliffe makes the point but I'm not sure he achieve the criteria for notability. Reichsfürst (talk) 01:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia admin incident related to this article

A wikipedia admin notification incident has been opened related to this article. All users who have been involved should consider posting there thoughts here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Geopolitical_ethnic_and_religious_conflicts#Islamic_terrorism

--Misconceptions2 (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Interpretations of the Quran and Hadith

According to Robert Spencer, Muhammad said in one Hadith: "Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand." Abu Huraira added: Allah's Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them). Narrated in Abu Huraira, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220"

Furthermore Muhammad said in another Hadith: The Prophet said, "Who is ready to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has really hurt Allah and His Apostle?" Muhammad bin Maslama said, "O Allah's Apostle! Do you like me to kill him?" He replied in the affirmative. So, Muhammad bin Maslama went to him (i.e. Ka'b) and said, "This person (i.e. the Prophet) has put us to task and asked us for charity." Ka'b replied, "By Allah, you will get tired of him." Muhammad said to him, "We have followed him, so we dislike to leave him till we see the end of his affair." Muhammad bin Maslama went on talking to him in this way till he got the chance to kill him. Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah Volume 4, Book 52, Number 270

And another Hadith: The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." I also heard the Prophet saying, "The institution of Hima is invalid except for Allah and His Apostle. Narrated As-Sab bin Jaththama Volume 4, Book 52, Number 256

79.209.93.127 (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I added the comments of Robert Spencer in the source section.79.209.93.127 (talk) 16:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

"U.S. State Department list" might be incomplete

I added one position to the list myself, there could be more, also it neeeds citations. --94.246.154.130 (talk) 15:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

"Qur'an and Hadith Verses relevant for terrorists" (formerly: Interpretations of the Qur'an and Hadith)

This is what I wrote to 79.209.93.127, and I'll post it here:

Please, stop posting these quotes, instead of interpretations. You might feel I'm trying to censor you and remove Spencer's opinion - so, no, I just want it to be clearly written and easy to read, and short (that is, proportionate to the space and attention given to the other authors, mind you). And anyone who wants to read more will just click in the references (and I even included an internal link to the article about his website, you know).

One man just can't be given most of the section, and filled with direct quotes without an interpretation (in the section named "interpretations"). --94.246.154.130 (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The interpretations of the quotes are in the source section. So they have interpretations now. I think this is enough to include them.79.209.93.127 (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

But anyone can read more (all) by following the source given in the references. Also I've finished the cleanup here and now I'll go, but really, believe me: I'm just being right here. Please don't make this article worse. Okay? --94.246.154.130 (talk) 18:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

And no, "interpretation" does not mean "relevant verses with comments" - it means just an explanation (look up the definition, then look at the rest of the section, how it's written), AND ALSO you just carerelessly reverted repeated paragraphs elsewhere. Definition. And if you really need, write more about his actual interpreatations, in the style that I've edited it. I won't be edit-warring with you anymore, but just take a second and analyse all this, and you'll realize that I'm right about it. --94.246.154.130 (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You are right about the definition of interpretation, but you do not understand the reason for this article. We have to show Quran or Hadith verses which are used by terrorists because otherwise the people would think that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam.79.209.93.127 (talk) 18:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Some real "reason for the article", what could it be? And who is this "we", that "have" to convince "the people" about anything? Do you even understand the purpose of Wikipedia, or its policies? Okay. Your edits are here, guess I'll left it for the other users deal with it in some way or another. --94.246.154.130 (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I reworded that section because I think this will help the purpose of this article. There are dangerous verses in the hadith and the quran!79.209.93.127 (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

There are verses that are just as dangerous in the Christian Bible. Should we then include such a cautionary heading in relevant articles? Considering your source is one Robert Spencer, a noted critic of Islam, the neutrality of the section is clearly questionable, to the point where there would likely be consensus to remove it outright based on that non-neutrality. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

No, not removal, just renaming back - look at the edit above. And I believe Spencer SHOULD be given a voice but just in proper and proprtionate way (the way that I've edited it out, also check this out in the same edit). --94.246.154.130 (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I see your point, but the Spencer material seems to play into the general WP:UNDUE tone of at least half the article. Add to that the other editor's commentary above, e.g. "We have to show Quran [sic] or Hadith verses...", and there's a concerning bias evident. Were it not for the existence of the Christian terrorism article, I'd give some thought to nominating this whole article for deletion based on ideological viewpoint-pushing. As it stands, though, if a way can be found to balance the tone of the article, there's no reason to take such a drastic step, except as a way to make a point...a very bad way, at that. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I should really close this page (as I said I'd). Where else do you see problems with the article? You might notice I've cleaned it up today, a lot. Also I'm strongly against censorship through removing Spencer's opinion altogether, I think my version of this section was just fine (it also clearly says what Spencer represents, on one hand, and links to his works on the other, so it's like a win/win for everybody). --94.246.154.130 (talk) 20:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and NPOV actually also dictates Spencer has to stay, unless he was specifically blacklisted on Wikipedia or something like that. --94.246.154.130 (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Btw, I just noticed that the fragment Spencer does not believe that traditional Islam is "inherently terroristic" but says he can prove that "traditional Islam contains violent and supremacist elements," and that "its various schools unanimously teach warfare against and the subjugation of unbelievers." (present in my version) was just fork-lifted by 79.209.93.127 from the article Robert Spencer (author). Anyway, I levae this stuff up to you, just remember the section was (and is) not just only about Spencer and deleting everything just because of him would be an overkill. --94.246.154.130 (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You don't really get the point? Any "dangerous verses in the hadith and the quran" are not the topic of this article, AND Wikipedia should be not used to promote any particular point of view at all (to which I might agree, or disagree, or have no opinion whatsoever, but it just doesn't matter, because what counts is this stuff). Now, goodbye. --94.246.154.130 (talk) 19:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Everybody is free to write intolerant verses of the Bible in the Christian terrorism article if they have good sources. I decided to put interolant Hadith verses in this section because they are there and Robert Spencer wrote it down. Robert Spencer belongs to this section to give it a neutral point of view. Furthermore I even added the comments of Robert Spencer about the Hadith Verses.79.209.93.127 (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss!79.209.90.152 (talk) 18:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Why? To prove a point? I think the matter's settled for now. Just be aware that there are other eyes on the article. 'Nuff said. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The other quotes in this section say that there is nothing to worry about in the Quran or Hadith. That is also a point.79.209.90.152 (talk) 09:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

These arguments are dangerously close to soapboxing. I've re-read the article as it stands, and it seems to be reasonably well-balanced as of this writing. Unless new information comes to light -- information supportable by reference to reliable, verifiable sources -- I see no reason to continue this discussion. Moving beyond this point would likely qualify as an effort at dispute resolution, and I'd welcome that, starting with a third opinion from an editor who hasn't been involved to this point. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Phrasing LEAD intro, according to the official "Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts" noticeboard

I'd like to receive comments/suggestions if there's any harm/errors in replacing the LEAD sentence "Islamic terrorism is a term for acts of terrorism committed by Muslims for the purpose of achieving varying political and/or religious ends" with "Islamic terrorism is a term for terrorist acts by Muslim individuals or groups who claim Islamic motivations, for the purpose of achieving varying political and/or religious ends." (similar to Christian terrorism), after trying to fix editors' concerns. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 22:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
The last discussion is below:

• Note: References have been removed from the introductory lead sentence the last couple-of-years. As both statement aren't referenced, I'm adding some definitions from my University's library, to avoid WP:SYN (I'll provide verification details when needed):

• "Islamic terrorism is both a propaganda term and an analytical category to describe the work and beliefs of a loosely linked set of fundamentalist groups at war with westernized Arab regimes and the countries that support them.," published by Charles Scribner's Sons.
• During the speech section on Islamic terrorism, the speaker said "Terrorism is an act carried out to achieve an inhuman and corrupt (mufsid) objective, and involving threat to security of any kind, and violation of rights acknowledged by religion and mankind," at the International Conference on Terrorism in Geneva.
• "Islamic terrorism [also known as Islamist terrorism or Jihadist terrorism] is religious terrorism by those whosemotivations are rooted in their interpretations of Islam," in a conference made by Yale University. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 00:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

---

I just made a changed to the LEAD, after consensus on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Geopolitical_ethnic_and_religious_conflicts/Archive_2#Focusing_on_topic. There was an error in my summarized link. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 09:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

There was no consensus in that discussion; 1 editor made a suggestion that you agreed with, but the other 3 participants did not agree. 2/5 does not represent consensus. I have reverted your inappropriate change. The views you espouse have been covered at length in the article but it is totally inappropriate to force the first sentence of the article to claim that your POV is fact. Please stop trying to warp the article to fit your personal opinion. Doc Tropics 17:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

@AdamRce, there doesnt seem to be consensus for your new wording. I support Doc Tropics position, i dont see how changing the wording is an improvement. I also dont see why you keep denying "self identity" of a human being. Denying self identity is like dictating to someone, who they are!--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

This is not about Muslim terrorists, but Islamic terrorism. Not replying to a discussion you were involved in doesn't seem that you objected (I'm not a god to sense our opinion). ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 07:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, can you please avoid twisting positions. I opened that noticeboard to ask for opinions. It turned to finger-pointing and you didn't agree on my wording (that's fine). When one editor came to focus on the content, like I suggested, no-one disagreed. Also, DavidElah suggested adding to the new phrasing. You don't have the right to disagree on a change you haven'e seen, right? So, that's NOT 2/5. Shall I open it again?

Regarding your summary, the phrasing doesn't say that they're not Muslims. The phrasing focuses on this article's aims (Islamic motivations for terrorism). A Muslim that performs terrorism is irrelevent here (as example), but we're looking at Islamic motivations for terrorism. So, by what you're saying, that the Christian Terrorism isn't made by Christians, just because it has a similar phrasing in the Lead. Go change that too if you want I'm sure it has more editors watching than this. Can you kindly put some actual reasons for your rejection? I'm not even who suggested this phrasing to say it's my POV. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 07:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. You made what you knew was a controversial change to the lede. So you must have discussed here on this talk page first, but I can't see that discussion. Can you point me at it? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I know it's controversial and sensitive to rephrase, so I went to ask for suggestions from experts in religious conflicts (which was noticed above) to get a broader view. Only two editors commented on the content there. My aim is not to remove their identity of being Muslims, as accused, but to limit the generalized tone. I actually think the word "people" should be removed from the new phrasing. I'm not trying to compare, but I still see Christian terrorism's intro-in-the-lead smoother (and it does not deny that they're Christians). ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 09:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so you *didn't* ask here? That seems to have been a mistake, and has caused unpleasantness. In future, ask *on the page in question* or at the very least include a link to the discussion. Expressing surprise that people didn't comment no your unmarked proposal on a far-distant noticeboard is going to wind people up, and we don't need that. See-also beware of the leopard William M. Connolley (talk) 11:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I have some reasons why I haven't opened it here, but it was linked and I just said so above (maybe this looks clearer Talk:Islamic_terrorism#Wikipedia_admin_incident_related_to_this_article :p). ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 11:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Islamic motivation? Replacing facts with sugar-coated syntax does not translate into neutrality. Assuming good faith, it would be hard to prove acts of violence committed by Muslims should be phrased as violence inspired by "Islamic motivation." Not only does that sound awfully silly, it is also patently false. Your version infers that these Muslims are not Muslims at all, but rather - motivated by Islam. The difference of course is there is no difference. It just sounds nicer when you dress up Islamic terrorism with Islamic motivation. Really, these sorts of debates belong in blogs, not encyclopedias. This article contains more than a dozen reliable sources that support the lead you oppose. Editors are mandated to contribute based on verifiability. NPOV codes state: "All articles must adhere to the Neutral point of view policy (NPOV), fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints published by reliable sources." Your edit represents a tiny, tiny insignificant minority that does not deserve a spot in the lead. Let alone anywhere in the article IMO. Wikifan^{Be nice} 10:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "people" was awful, and I didn't even realize that the sentence was mainly replacing "Muslims" with "people" (that's wasn't the aim). "is a term for terrorist acts by groups or individuals who claim Islamic motivations, for the purpose of achieving varying political and/or religious ends." does not deny that they're Muslims (which aren't only individuals). I'm not avoiding them being Muslims, but avoiding generalization. Of course Islamic motivation is done by Muslims! ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 11:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

What specifically is being generalized? The article does not say "All Muslims are terrorists." The lead is very explicit about what constitutes Islamic terrorism and describes the Muslims that commit these acts of violence. Are you suggesting the article is generalizing all Muslims? The current version spells out plainly Islamic terrorism is terrorism done by Muslims. Your version says Islamic terrorism is carried out by "people who claim Islamic motivation..." What is Islamic motivation? If anything, your version is generalized and would likely confuse a reader of who these Muslims happen to be. Are they actual Muslims or just individuals motivated by Islam? Is there a difference? Wikifan^{Be nice} 11:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you really read my reply? Again, I said that "people" was a mistake.

I did bring multiple reliable source for them being "radical Muslim extremest" on the article, but I opened that discussion when it was being removed. I wanted to specify the category of Muslim extremist, as the attacks aren't caused by extremist (but by other motivations). This story is over, so what objections do you have on the new phrasing? Again, I still see Christian terrorism better phrased. This article is for religious motivations for terrorism. Do you like adding Muslims to both:

"is a term for terrorist acts by Muslim individuals or groups who claim Islamic motivations, for the purpose of achieving varying political and/or religious ends." ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 11:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

@AdamRce, you need to differentiate between, fact and opinion.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the reason necessary for a change in the intro(responding to an RFC). Although I do prefer the second wording ("Islamic terrorism is a term for terrorist acts by Muslim individuals or groups who claim Islamic motivations, for the purpose of achieving varying political and/or religious ends."). IRWolfie- (talk) 12:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. This part, "...committed by Muslims for the purpose of achieving varying...religious ends," of the current unsourced statement is WP:SYTH and original research. I've added sources above for the proposed change. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 21:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Oppose the change. Wikipedia defines terms based on the way they are used in reliable sources. The proposed change for the lead will cause exclusion of much of the topics labeled as "Islamic terrorism" by reliable sources. This is not the definition used by the academic community. 05:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I've added references above, as both statements are not cited. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 00:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Suggested Name change from Islamic terrorism to Islamic political violence

This is an ongoing debate as of April 2010. Please see Talk:Islamic terrorism/Proposed name change.

Political violence is a euphemism. There is no place for euphemism in Wikipedia.

The current definition includes the words "achieving varying political and/or religious ends". Surely that should be "achieving varying religious and/or political ends". In Islam religion always comes first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

RfC regarding introduction

My presence here is the result of the RfC, which automatically picks random volunteers to respond. As part of my volunteer status I exclude myself from voting on, making or altering the copy of the article for at least a month after my comments are published on this talk page. I have been working on a substantive treatment of the difficulties evidenced on this page, and my full consideration is not yet ready. But I can make an initial comment on the subject of the introductory paragraph alone.

Simple formal logic suggests that Islamic terrorism does not have to be carried out by a Muslim. If an Islamist group contracts a non-Muslim operative (or group) to carry out an act of terrorism on its behalf, and makes known publicly that the act was motivated to support or advance a cause linked to Islamism, can that act of terrorism not also be legitimately described as Islamic terrorism, regardless of the personal faiths of those who carry it out?

Moreover, if an act of terrorism is carried out by Muslims, some of whom consider themselves Islamists, but intended entirely as a factional dispute between two Muslim groups, must that act necessarily be described as Islamic terrorism, or could it just be a turf war that just so happens to be between Muslims?

As a weaker corollary of the above propositions, if a terrorist act is carried out with the stated aim of supporting an Islamist cause, but with consequences more likely to relate to robbery, murder of rivals, pinning the blame on someone other than the real perpetrators, etc, is that act still properly definable as Islamic terrorism?

I will post again soon with my more complete consideration of the topic. I wish you all good luck because a defining feature of the value of Wikipedia to the world is exactly how editors like you manage to resolve the difficult and possibly polarising issues of a topic like this one.

Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 01:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Only an Islamic terrorist would try to use formal logic! Gee totes (talk) 23:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

We do not define topics but report how they are defined. "Islamic terrorism" is defined as terrorism committed to obtain religious objectives. While sometimes the objectives of terrorism are unclear, it is not up to us to decide what they were but merely report what sources say. Islamic people, in common with people from other religions, may commit acts of terrorism unconnected with their religion. Arab Muslims and Christians for example cooperated in acts of terrorism against colonial rule. TFD (talk) 04:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you please add a source of where it's defined? ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 08:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you find a source where it's not? You guys have been through this show before. The intro is perfectly acceptable. Here is adam's alternative:

Islamic terrorism is a term for terrorist acts by Muslim individuals or groups who claim Islamic motivations, for the purpose of achieving varying political and/or religious ends.

Peter, your weigh in doesn't really respond to Adam's proposition. Rather, it simply adds more to the discussion and doesn't bring you guys closer to a resolution. IMO, I don't see any merit in Adam's edit. "Islamic motivation" sounds very weasily, suggesting Muslims who commit acts of violence in the name of Islam aren't actually Muslims but simply inspired by "Islamic motivation." The article is about Islamic terrorism, not Muslims committing terrorism in the spirit of Islamic motivation. Really. Wikifan^{Be nice} 09:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

So "Muslim individuals" doesn't mean they're Muslims???!. Why can't anyone bring a source for the sentence they're supporting, or shall we remove the unsourced statement. Have you read the sourced statement above (in the RFC heading)? ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 09:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

"Religious terrorism is the use of violence to further divinely commanded purposes, often targeting broad categories of foes to bring about sweeping change." (Aubrey, Stefan M. The new dimension of international terrorism. Zurich: vdf Hochschulverlag AG, 2004. ISBN 3728129496, p. 44)[4] TFD (talk) 21:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

How does a professional in Economics and International Affair be considered reliable for a definition on terrorism. Also, he was describing modern terrorism and haven't claimed to be talking about all. Furthermore, look as his views here, where he mostly focuses on political motivations. So you're claiming now that the above references (whom are experts in the field) are weak, and this editor is strong? ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 07:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Adding a citation to the start of the article on this seems to be a bit pedantic (see WP:BLUE) IRWolfie- (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps for clarity the wording should be changed from "muslims" to "some muslims" or similar? IRWolfie- (talk) 13:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Name of article

Can this article be renamed to 'Islamist Terrorism'. It's less of a sweeping statement, and acknowledges that not all muslims approve of these acts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.171.47 (talk) 14:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I was having similar thoughts. Islamist refers to Islamism, i.e "Political Islam", while Islamic simply refers to Islam, the religion, so it would appear more logical to use the title 'Islamist Terrorism'. However, we need to also consider normal usage, and we see:

• Google Websearch:
  • "Islamist terrorism" 893,000 results
  • "Islamic terrorism" 1,670,000
• Google Books:
  • "Islamist terrorism" 22,200
  • "Islamic terrorism" 53,100
• Google Scholar:
  • "Islamist terrorism" 3,620
  • "Islamic terrorism" 8,200

Anyone care to share further thoughts on this? --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 11:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned below, the term "islamism" is controversial and also it is used by people with a specific viewpoint, while the term Islamic terrorism is used by people across the spectrum. We could rename it "Islamic relgious terrorism", which is also used and is less ambiguous, but we should also rename Christian terrorism, etc. as well. TFD (talk) 18:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I see your point. I don't think "Islamic religious terrorism" is an ideal solution. The word Islamic (or Christian) includes, by default, the notion of 'religious'. Think "Islamic religious law" vs. "Islamic law". You say "Islamic religious terrorism" is "also used", but Gsearch gives just 51 results for it, and Gbooks just 9 (compare the results above). As the most commonly-used and most easily recognizable term, I suspect the current title is the most appropriate, despite my reservations as expressed above. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Difficulty with opening sentence

The word "terrorism" isn't found anywhere in Islam..instead the foundation of this word refers back to the crusades against Islam..( and although, the crusaders were Christians, the word only refers to the people of that time instead of generalizing the whole group).Likely, Islam is a religion rather than a "group". In fact, Islam prohibits terrorism and prohibits harming those who are innocent, peaceful, elderly, women, children..etc. Islam only encourages people to defend themselves against attacks. Some groups use Islam to justify their actions of terror and that's exactly what the media and the people want to hear. The opening sentence currently reads:

Islamic terrorism (Arabic: إرهاب إسلامي ʾirhāb ʾislāmī) is acts of terrorism committed by Muslims for the purpose of achieving varying political and/or religious ends.

Aside from the stylistic calamity of "Islamic terrorism is acts...", there is a problem in that the current wording implies that any terrorist act is an act of Islamic terrorism if the religion of its perpetrator is Islam. If for example a Real IRA member, who happens to be a Muslim, carries out a bombing in Northern Ireland, does that make his/her act one of 'Islamic terrorism'? Of course not. I propose the following rewording:

Islamic terrorism (Arabic: إرهاب إسلامي ʾirhāb ʾislāmī) refers to acts of terrorism committed for the purpose of achieving varying Islamist political and/or religious ends.

This applies a link to Islamism, which is the driving force behind Islamic terrorism, rather than Islam, which is the religion of many who offer no support to, nor have any connection with, Islamic terrorism. Are there any other viewpoints? --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 12:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Islamism and Islamic are not synonymous. Your proposed definition would exclude secular Muslim groups, such as Black September. Many scholars recognize the existence of secular Islamic terrorism. See for example Radical Islam in the West: Ideology and Challenge, By Brian R. Farmer, p. 107. Marokwitz (talk) 16:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

"Islamism and Islamic are not synonymous." Agreed - see the preceding section. What is your justification for describing the Black September (group) as "Islamic terrorism", since it counted among its members Christian Arabs? Like the PFLP whose founder, George Habash, was Christian, their fight had nothing to do with Islam - they were a Palestinian nationalist paramilitary group, which counted Muslims, Christians and others among their number.

Is it your contention that a terrorist act done by someone who happens to be Muslim must be "Islamic terrorism", irrespective of the goals, context, etc. of said act? That's what the opening sentence currently says. Can you (or anyone) suggest a better way of avoiding this, than my proposal? --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold and implement the non-substantive part of my proposal, i.e change 'ís' to 'refers to', now. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying that any terrorist act done by someone who happens to be Muslim must be Islamic terrorism. Your IRA example is perfectly valid. I'm just raising the point that at least some scholars include secular, non Islamist, predominantly Muslim groups, acting to fulfill political non religious goals, in the definition of this topic. Your proposed definition is a bit too narrow in this respect. Marokwitz (talk) 07:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The term "secular Islamic terrorism" seems something of an oxymoron. Gbooks and Gscholar find not a single hit for the term, while a web search turns up one lone case of user-generated content. What text in Farmer are you referring to? I've gone to the page you cite and found nothing to support the contention that the author includes in the term "Islamic terrorism" the activities of secular groups such as Black September and other leftist Palestinian paramilitaries. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 14:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Black September is given by Farmer as an example for Islamic violence within Western countries even though it was mostly a secular group. The "Muslim world" includes secular elements which are not practicing the Muslim faith yet are influenced by the symbols and heritage of Islam. See also our article Religious violence - Robert Pape, a political scientists who specializes in suicide terroism argues that much of the modern Muslim suicide terrorism is secular based. Marokwitz (talk) 15:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

All the sources I have seen that present a typology of terrorism include it as a type of religious terrorism, defined by Aubrey as "the use of violence to further divinely commanded purposes".[5] It is distinct from Arab nationalist terrorism which included Christians and atheists. BTW the way I would not use the term "Islamist" in the definition because it a controversial term and is somewhat circular - someone who commits terrorist acts to advance their version of Islam is an Islamist. Marokwitz, would you call a Christian who committed an act of Arab nationalist terrorism a Muslim terrorist? TFD (talk) 17:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

T4D, your post in the above section prompted me to look at the Christian terrorism article. Based loosely on the opening sentence there, what about this to replace the opener here:

Islamic terrorism (Arabic: إرهاب إسلامي ʾirhāb ʾislāmī) is religious terrorism comprising terrorist acts by groups or individuals who claim Islamic motivations or goals for their actions.

This appears to address the difficulty I raised at the top of this section, while addressing (I think) Marokwitz's concerns about my earlier proposal. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that example is a much better definition than what the article currently has. It's absurd to call an act of terrorism for varying political ends Islamic terrorism simply because a Muslim is responsible for the act. 198.204.141.208 (talk) 22:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It is better. But is it not more correct that rather than claim motivation they are motivated by their own interpretations of their religion? TFD (talk) 22:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The offered example is clear and almost identical to the first line for Christian terrorism. Those are two things that make me prefer it. I'm not sure how far down the rabbit hole your question might lead. I think I agree, but given Wikipedia depends on written words ('claims') and not telepathy ('their own interpretations of their religion') I think we are better off defining something based on what can be a reliable source rather than synthesis. If you have an example you'd like to offer I will happily say whether I like yours or the one above. 198.204.141.208 (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

We should use sources. I recommend using an article for a definition of religious terrorism and then saying that theis article is about religious terrorism where the religion is Islam. TFD (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Widely supported

"... Hezbollah's rocket attacks against Israeli civilian targets are widely supported in the Muslim world and [emphasis mine] regarded as defensive Jihad by a legitimate resistance movement rather than terrorism." The sources noted at the end of this sentence are manifestoes which make no representation of any rocket attacks being widely supported by anyone. I think removing the bolded part above better represents the sources. 198.204.141.208 (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hearing no objections, I am removing "widely supported in the Muslim world and" from the quoted line I mentioned above. 198.204.141.208 (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I changed the line to "Muslims living in the West denounce the September 11th attacks against United States, while Hezbollah contends that their rocket attacks against Israeli civilian targets are defensive Jihad by a legitimate resistance movement rather than terrorism." 198.204.141.208 (talk) 22:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

OBL lead

It is my opinion that the intro on OBL should be deleted from the lead and merged into the body of the article. Is it fair to include the media's depiction of Islamic terrorism? Islamic terrorism is an extremely broad subject, AQ is merely one organization. The fact that OBL is now dead should also be considered.

I suggest expanding the definition of Islamic terrorism in the lead, and leave it at that. List various reasons in the body.

And if editors are going to enumerate the inspirations of OBL philosophy, it would be better of us to base our edits on OBL's manifesto. Big difference between OBL and Al Qaeda in Iraq. Manifesto goes on about re-conquering the Iberian Peninsula, re-invading India, removing Western-supported dictatorships, etc.

Suggestions? Wikifan^{Be nice} 12:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Opinion Surveys

The Gallop Poll and the ABC News/BBC/NHK poll should be sourced or removed. Tomsv 98 (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

who wants to get this deleted???

Most of these info. are incorrect and the person who has written that article should be excuted for contempting Islam!! so please try to help me remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.196.70.184 (talk) 03:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

You can't use a PROD on the article as it has already been to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic terrorism. You would need to start a second one to try and have it deleted. However, you need to find a WP:POLICY that supports your request. You can't just say that it shows contempt for Islam. You should probably stay away from wanting others to be executed as well. That sort of talk will just end up in you being blocked. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Stretching the definition of "terrorism"?

If piracy/the Barbary wars counts as an example of early anti-american islamic terrorism, then I think one should equally say that the manifest destiny was also an early ideology of Christian anti-native-American terrorism. Isn't that section original research? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.18.16.90 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 5 October 2012

That is a good point and would be even better if you had phrased it in a neutral tone. I checked the references for the section and none refer to Islamic terrorism. None of the main sources for Islamic terrorism mention it. I found however that according to The Politics of American Education, p. 160, David Barton wants the Texas Education Agency to have this claim made in high school textbooks.[6] In other words, it is a fringe view and I will remove the section. TFD (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Barbary pirates

How is the Barbary pirate war an example of "Islamic terrorism"? Pirates capturing and ransoming sailors for money. The article First Barbary War doesn't even mention Islamic terrorism. Not one single time. Shall we add Piracy in Somalia as an example of modern Islamic terrorism? Barry McGuiness (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I will remove the first half of the section which is unsourced. If there are sources that consider the pirates to be "Islamic terrorists" then we could mention them along with an explanation of how scholars view this. TFD (talk) 00:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Removed Arabic Transliteration

I just removed the Arabic transliteration from the lede of the article, as the term Islamic terrorism is just descriptive and didn't originate in Arabic. —Neil 23:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Definition of Islamic terrorism

The definition of Islamic terrorism should not be what it is now (Islamic terrorism is a form of religious terrorism committed by Muslims to achieve varying political ends in the name of religion.) because not all muslims are terrorists. It should be something like:" Islamic terrorism comprises terrorist acts by groups or individuals who claim Islamic motivations or goals for their actions." Thank you very much in advance. 77.77.246.32 (talk) 05:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

...Umm. Nowhere does it say or imply that all Muslims are terrorists. Where on earth did you get that idea from? Aelius28 (talk) 07:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I see the problem. "Muslims" could refer to Muslims as a whole, rather than merely those who commit terrorist acts. What about, "Islamic terrorism is a form of religious terrorism carried out to achieve varying political ends in the name of Islam?" TFD (talk) 09:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

This is already much better than the current intro. I would change the "political ends" bit to "political changes" because ends can be confusing due to its multiple definitions. AVAAGAA↪ 16:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow! I was about to comment on this very issue! I was about to attempt a revision of the initial sentence, but of course with these articles, always best to confer with others who are more active. Certainly the initial sentence is terribly POV -- it would be more in line with NPOV to state "committed by some Muslims" or "committed by a minority of Muslims" -- something along those lines. This would not only be NPOV, but also fully in line with WP:V as it is a fact that the vast majority of Muslims do not commit such acts, just as it is a fact that the vast majority of Jews do not want to destroy Palestine or nuke Iran, just as it is a fact that the vast majority of Christians do not go around bombing abortion clinics and sexually abusing children. So. can we reach some consensus on this issue? Laval (talk) 16:31, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

How dare you

How dare you make such article? You can't say Islam is terroristic because it's recommends peace towards everything. An example is Christians and Jews lived in areas where Muslims ruled. And they weren't killed and tortured. They had same rights as Muslims. Even today we are witnesses of multi-cultural societies in Islamic Countrys, such as Bosnia-Herzegovina, Burma/Myanmar, Jerusalem, Turkey... So my recommendation for you is to explore Islam and what Islam provides to people. Islam cannot be judged by some people, nor Christianity, because these religions are peaceful. --WikiLite91 (talk) 23:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The article does not say that Islam is terrroristic. It says that some Muslims make terrorism attacks in the name of Islam. There are similar articles about Christian terrorism, Jewish terrorism, Buddhist Terrorism and one about Religious terrorism in general. All of these religions are peaceful, but there are members of all of them that commit acts of terrorism and say that they are doing it because of their religion. That is what these articles are about. GB fan 13:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

To be fair though, this article is much longer and more detailed than any of those other articles. It seems a bit WP:UNDUE-ish. CodeCat (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You're right CodeCat. Looks like Muslims are biggest terrorists, even if most genocides are done to them (us). --WikiLite91 (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Strange redirects

Can someone clarify to me why "Militant Islamist" redirects to a different page than "Militant Islam"? Second, why "Militant Islamism" redirects here? Since when are "terrorism" and "militant" synonymous? Also, why does "Muslim extremist" redirects to a different page than "Islamic extremism"? And since when is extremism synonymous with terrorism again? I suggest redirecting "Militant islamist" to the same place as "militant islam" and "Muslim extremist" to "islamic extremism". In fact, there is no possible logical justification for those redirects so I will change them in any case. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 01:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss re-directs to this page. I suggest you change them and if anyone objects you can discuss it on their talk pages. TFD (talk) 05:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Tag

I tagged this text. Although there is a caution note on the TP, I see no care for not hurting other people's feelings. Words like "Muslims", "Islamic organizations" seem to be used -I suspect- on purpose to create antipathy against Muslims. I am certain whoever edited this page could easily find the correct terminology to separate "Islamist extremists" from Muslims. I am really shocked to see this text here. Those who may feel disturbed by my words can take the action they deem necessary, because I sincerely doubt the good-will of some editors, of course not all. Everybody in this article who feels this could be touching them now have a chance to prove me the opposite by way of their edits. Thank you and regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 09:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with your tag. Look for example at the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan or Islamic Movement of Central Asia. It is their name which includes Islam.--79.192.19.21 (talk) 11:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

And look at Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, they are in the news for their terrorist activities.--79.192.19.21 (talk) 11:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, what Why should I have a User Name? is saying, is that on this page the terms "Islamic" and "Terrorist" are used virtually interchangeably. They are not claiming, as only a fool would, that acts of terror are not committed by people who identify as Muslim, just as they are committed by people of other faiths. Vanamonde93 (talk) 12:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Thanks for your intervention, 93; although you don't need to prove anyone I am not a fool. Nobody here is a fool. It is just a simple fact that some of us reflect our prejudices in our acts while others try to be objective here. That is all. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 05:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Manner of speaking, buddy. Also, I took the liberty of reducing the size of these two comments; revert if you feel they are relevant. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I do not see any interchangeable use of the terms "Islamic" and "Terrorist" and therefore still disagree with this tag.--79.192.19.21 (talk) 12:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

If you insist on sticking to a highly literal interpretation of what I say, instead of trying to understand the meaning, fine. Your objection is noted. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Islamic terrorism

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Islamic terrorism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "times":

• From Israel–United States relations: Whittell, Giles (26 March 2010). "Binyamin Netanyahu humiliated after Barack Obama dumped him for dinner". The Times. London.
• From J. Bowyer Bell: "J. Bowyer Bell". London: The Times. 23 October 2000. Retrieved 2008-02-12. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• From Murder of Lee Rigby: Shaviv, Miriam (23 May 2013). "UK military calls attack victim a model soldier". The Times of Israel.
• From Tamil Nadu: Hemalatha, Karthikeyan (24 June 2013). "For 10th year in a row, Tamil Nadu tops India in road accidents". TNN. The Times of India. Retrieved 1 January 2014.
• From Ovadia Yosef: Winer, Stuart; Ginsburg, Mitch (7 October 2013). "Intense mourning after death of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef". The Times of Israel. Retrieved 7 October 2013.
• From 2000s (decade): "Goldfinger Brown's £2 billion blunder in the bullion market, ''The Times'', 15 April 2007". London: Timesonline.co.uk. Archived from the original on 2011-06-29. Retrieved February 19, 2014.
• From Philippines: Operating Hours and Train Schedule, Metro Rail Transit Corporation Passenger Information, retrieved July 7, 2006 Archived June 21, 2006, at the Wayback Machine
• From Muhammad in Islam: Bradlow, Khadija (August 18, 2007). "A night journey through Jerusalem". Times Online. Retrieved March 27, 2011.
• From No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam: Rodenbeck, Max (May 29, 2005). "'No god but God': The War Within Islam". The New York Times. Retrieved May 7, 2009.
• From Operation Enduring Freedom – Philippines: Al-Qaeda stalked by the Predator
• From Jonathan Evans (MI5 officer): Leppard, David (17 December 2006). "New MI5 boss is top expert on Al-Qaeda". The Sunday Times. London. Retrieved 7 March 2007.
• From StandWithUs: Farago, Yonit (July 28, 2006). "Israel backed by army of cyber-soldiers". London: The Times. Retrieved May 24, 2010.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Article of the Subject

This an article on "Islamic Terrorism". The definition of terrorism is not the definition of "Islamic Terrorism". Citing sources related to "Terrorism" is not citing article related to "Islamic Terrorism" and removing the definition that "Islamic Terrorism" as Religious Terrorism is wrong. A lack of understanding about how to read, especially sources, but also opposing arguments is not a valid reason to revert, it is your own failing, not that of the facts which you are reverting. I also repeat that the original research that follows your incorrect definition is still not welcome. - Jimmi Hugh (talk)—Preceding undated comment added 16:45, 26 May 2009(UTC).

Regarding "Analysis of relevant Quranic verses"

The following verse has been written incomplete... to support abrogation of the "no force compulsion verse"...Here is the complete verse from the same referenced site.

Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

(OT) Views of Jihad of different Muslim groups

You could integrate this stuff to the more revelant articles somehwere.

Ahmadiyya view

Main article: Ahmadiyya view on Jihad

In Ahmadiyya Islam, pacifism is a strong current, and jihad is one's personal inner struggle and should not be used violently for political motives. Violence is the last option only to be used to protect religion and one's own life in extreme situations of persecution.

Sunni view

See also: Opinion of Islamic scholars on Jihad

Jihad has been classified either as al-jihād al-akbar (the greater jihad), against one's ego (nafs), or al-jihād al-asghar (the lesser jihad), the external, physical effort, often implying fighting (this is similar to the shiite view of jihad as well).

Gibril Haddad has analyzed the basis for the belief that internal jihad is the "greater jihad", Jihad al-akbar. Haddad identifies the primary historical basis for this belief in a pair of similarly worded hadeeth, in which Mohammed is reported to have told warriors returning home that they had returned from the lesser jihad of struggle against non-Muslims to a greater jihad of struggle against lust. Although Haddad notes that the authenticity of both hadeeth is questionable, he nevertheless concludes that the underlying principle of superiority internal jihad does have a reliable basis in the Qur'an and other writings.

On the other hand, the Hanbali scholar Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya did believe that "internal Jihad" is important but he suggests those hadith as weak which consider "Jihad of the heart/soul" to be more important than "Jihad by the sword". Contemporary Islamic scholar Abdullah Yusuf Azzam has argued the hadith is not just weak but "is in fact a false, fabricated hadith which has no basis. It is only a saying of Ibrahim Ibn Abi `Abalah, one of the Successors, and it contradicts textual evidence and reality."

Muslim jurists explained there are four kinds of jihad fi sabilillah (struggle in the cause of God):

• Jihad of the heart (jihad bil qalb/nafs) is concerned with combatting the devil and in the attempt to escape his persuasion to evil. This type of Jihad was regarded as the greater jihad (al-jihad al-akbar).
• Jihad by the tongue (jihad bil lisan) is concerned with speaking the truth and spreading the word of Islam with one's tongue.
• Jihad by the hand (jihad bil yad) refers to choosing to do what is right and to combat injustice and what is wrong with action.
• Jihad by the sword (jihad bis saif) refers to qital fi sabilillah (armed fighting in the way of God for defensive purposes, or holy war to prevent a greater loss of lives), the most common usage by Salafi Muslims and offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Some contemporary Islamists have succeeded in replacing the greater jihad, the fight against desires, with the lesser jihad, the holy war to establish, defend and extend the Islamic state.

True Hadith quotations by Robert Spencer

The follwing text is continously removed by an editor called Annoynmous:

Text

According to Robert Spencer, Muhammad said in one Hadith:

“ "Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand." Abu Huraira added: Allah's Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them). Narrated in Abu Huraira. Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:220, see also Sahih Muslim, 4:1062,Sahih Muslim, 4:1063,Sahih Muslim, 4:1066,Sahih Muslim, 4:1067 and Sahih al-Bukhari, 5:59:512 ”

Furthermore Muhammad said in another Hadith:

“ The Prophet said, "Who is ready to kill Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf who has really hurt Allah and His Apostle?" Muhammad bin Maslama said, "O Allah's Apostle! Do you like me to kill him?" He replied in the affirmative. So, Muhammad bin Maslama went to him (i.e. Ka'b) and said, "This person (i.e. the Prophet) has put us to task and asked us for charity." Ka'b replied, "By Allah, you will get tired of him." Muhammad said to him, "We have followed him, so we dislike to leave him till we see the end of his affair." Muhammad bin Maslama went on talking to him in this way till he got the chance to kill him. Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:270, see also Sahih al-Bukhari, 5:59:369,Sahih Muslim, 19:4436 ”

And another Hadith:

“ The Prophet passed by me at a place called Al-Abwa or Waddan, and was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." I also heard the Prophet saying, "The institution of Hima is invalid except for Allah and His Apostle. Narrated As-Sab bin Jaththama Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:52:256, see also Sahih Muslim, 19:4321 Sunan Abu Dawood, 38:4390 ”

Response

The Hadith are true and even linked to. This is a true statement by Robert Spencer. There is no reason to remove this.--79.192.45.148 (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Just Because you say that doesn't make it true. Spencer is a right wing polemicist with no academic credentials in Islamic studies. Who is to say Spencer quoted the hadith accurately? The links listed are from his book, not the hadith itself. Spencer is a fringe source who should not be relied upon to interpret whether the hadith sanctions terrorism.annoynmous 23:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The comments of Spencer are not relevant. Relevant is that the Hadith are true. Look to the links.--79.192.45.148 (talk) 00:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Than why have Spencer at all? It's interesting that before every passage there's a link to spencer, but in the passages themselves there's links to an organization called the Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement at University of Southern California. All there doing presenting the hadiths in English with no commentary on there context and meaning. By disingenuously adding links to Spencer's book at top with his interpretation of them it gives the false impression that this is the mainstream interpretation of these passages. I doubt this organization would endorse Spencer's interpretation.

Also the center also has these Hadiths:

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 257:

Narrated 'Abdullah:

During some of the Ghazawat of the Prophet a woman was found killed. Allah's Apostle disapproved the killing of women and children.

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 258:

Narrated Ibn 'Umar:

During some of the Ghazawat of Allah's Apostle a woman was found killed, so Allah's Apostle forbade the killing of women and children.

The Inclusion of these passages in the article basically count as Original research. Your taking Spencer's interpretation of them and then link to an unrelated organization that does not endorse that interpretation. If you want to use these passages than find a more reliable source than Spencer who can provide more balanced analysis.annoynmous 00:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Spencer does indeed quote this hadith in his book 'The Truth About Muhammad' on the reverenced pages. So this is not original research. The comments by him, which are also shown and which interpret this passages are not endorsed by the Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement. But the hadith are true and this is the point.--79.192.45.148 (talk) 06:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The context in which there being shown in reference to there interpretation by Spencer as giving support to the idea that Islam condones violence. Spencer may have quoted them accurately, but that doesn't mean his views of them are right. Also linking to spencer and quoting them gives the false impression that this is a mainstream interpretation of these passages when it isn't. I'm pretty sure that Wikipedia ruled a while ago that spencer was no a reliable source. Find a more neutral source who endorses his interpretation or stop putting it back in the article.annoynmous 08:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The section implies that Islam supports terrorism without providing any sources that actually make that claim. The modern meaning of "terror" as violence to achieve political ends dates to the French Revolution (1789 following), so using this source without commentary is misleading. TFD (talk) 10:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The established scholars of Islam claim that this hadith do not exist. Therefore it is right to use Robert Spencer as a source.--79.192.19.122 (talk) 11:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm assuming you meant scholars that claim the hadith do exist. Well then find one who endorses spencer's interpretation of them. You forget the link don't just reference the hadiths they also reference spencer's interpretation of them such as this:

And another Hadith:

That's an opinion on what the hadith means which unfairly bias's the article.annoynmous 13:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

References

Then let us insert the Hadith without the comments of Robert Spencer. I meant that the established scholars of Islam claim that these controversial hadith do not exist. They know of course that the hadith exist.--79.192.19.122 (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I still feel strongly that Spencer shouldn't be in the article, but edit wars depress the hell out of me. So in the interest of stopping this from going on for another few days I added some passages from the hadith that forbid killing of women and children. I feel this balances the article out and will serve as a good compromise. I hope that this is the end of this matter. .annoynmous 02:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Who cares what Robert Spencer says? TFD (talk) 06:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Removal of the section: Education issues

The section claims there are only two muslim nobel laureates, in reality there are eleven. The comparison of GDP spent on education of muslim countries vs western countries and Israel seems dubious. The section as a whole seems opinionated, there are no citations. The tone and style of writing of this section does not seem to be inline with the ethos of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12usn12 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I just removed this section because it was a copyvio from the single source. However, it also seems like tremendously undue weight, and OR to boot, because the connection to terrorism is non-existant; the article is discussing something else altogether, and has just the one source. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 12 December 2014

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move, leaning towards "no move". I kept looking and could not find a single reliable outside source in the nomination or the supportive comments for the assertion that "Islamic terrorism" is an inaccurate title. No sources were used to counter the point, either, making this no-consensus, even though consistency with Christian terrorism is a strong secondary factor in this discussion that was never adequately dismissed. I desperately want for WP to be fair and accurate--I just needed some sources to make me understand that this title is factually wrong. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 20:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

---

Islamic terrorism → Islamist terrorism – Most Muslims wouldn't want to be associated with it so WP:AT, with text "..The title indicates what the article is about..", applies. In the article Islamic terrorism#Ideology clearly presents Islamists as the faction behind terrorist attacks. The following section, Islamic terrorism#Criticism of Islamic terrorist ideology, then demonstrates a high level of disapproval of Islamic/Islamist terrorist attacks among Muslims. WP:LABEL (also accessed by WP:TERRORIST) speaks of value laden labels yet, in this situation, it can be argued that Islamic is a more value laden label even than terrorist. Many Muslims roundly condemn terrorist action. Searches indicate about half the level of hits for "Islamist terrorism" and "Islamist terrorist" in comparison to searches on "Islamic terrorism" and "Islamic terrorist". The Islamist terms have a far more specific meaning on a subject that is not representative of Islam. I am not sure whether sources have really thought things through with regard to their usage. --Relisted. Dekimasuよ! 00:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC) GregKaye ✍♪ 14:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• Some of the previous move discussions are at Talk:Islamic terrorism/Proposed name change (2009-2011), Talk:Islamic terrorism/Archive of page move debate (2006), Talk:Islamic terrorism/Archive 6#Page moving (2007), Talk:Islamic terrorism/Archive 6#Article title (2007, most are about Islamic vs. Islamist from here on out), Talk:Islamic terrorism/Archive 6#2008 Requested move (2008), Talk:Islamic terrorism/Archive 7#"Islamist terrorism" (2008), Talk:Islamic terrorism/Archive 7#Title of the article (2009), Talk:Islamic terrorism/Archive 7#Islamic or Islamist terrorism (2010), and Talk:Islamic terrorism#Archive 7#Name of article (2011). Dekimasuよ! 17:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Islamic terrorism is the common name, which should normally be used. It is not singling out Islam, because similar terms are used for terrorism inspired by other religions, which are all subtypes of "religious terrorism." The term "Islamist terrorism" is redundant btw - supposedly Islamists are Muslims who use terror to advance Islam - it would mean Islamic terrorist terrorism. TFD (talk) 03:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • TFD I think that you are incorrect in asserting a narrow definition of Islamist which, I believe, is better defined as people who believe that Islam should guide social and political in addition to being a guide to personal life. Basically all Islamic terrorists are Islamists but not all Islamists are terrorists. "Islamist terrorist", however, better meets the requirements of WP:AT: "The title indicates what the article is about.." These terrorists are Islamists and yet, by their very use of terrorism, they move from theologies within Islam. It may also be worth noting that even the word Islam is based on the word "Salaam" meaning peace. GregKaye ✍♪ 05:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    • You are defining Islamism too broadly. Are there any "Islamists" who oppose terrorism? TFD (talk) 06:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
      • TFD I do not know. There are certainly Islamists that exert effort into endeavours other than terrorism. You say that "supposedly Islamists are Muslims who use terror to advance Islam". This would be an argument to merge Islamic terrorism to Islamism. If the two terms have such great similarity then surely this amplifies the argument to use them together. WP:AT states the intension that "..The title indicates what the article is about.." Islamist terrorism seems to do that with relative precision. Please withdraw your oppose. GregKaye ✍♪ 09:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
        • It is not an argument to merge. Islamism is a belief system, terrorism is a tactic. I should correct what I said. Islamists do not necessarily carry out terrorist acts, but see terrorism as justified. TFD (talk) 17:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, as the title does indicate what the article is about - it is about terrorism carried about by people based on their interpretation of Islam and motivated by furthering the goals of same. By comparison, we also have Christian terrorism and Jewish religious terrorism, which are about terrorism by people based on their interpretation of those religions. These interpretations of the respective religions are likewise not very widely-held ones, nor their actions widely supported amongst people of their declared faiths, so statements like Most [X] wouldn't want to be associated with it, Many [X] roundly condemn terrorist action and a subject that is not representative of [X] could just as easily apply there. Any rename discussion based on such grounds should really involve all three if it involves one.

There's a bigger, more insurmountable problem, however: it isn't neutral. This is, essentially, an attempt to say that certain people who profess to be members of a religion are not, in fact, members of that religion in Wikipedia's voice. Certainly one can point out that the terrorists' interpretation is not widely-held and that many Muslims condemn the actions taken on behalf of that ideology by quoting or otherwise citing relevant people like Tahir-ul-Qadri and Fred Halliday who say that, and the article does do that, but there isn't any place in an article title to say anything in any voice but Wikipedia's. Compare the article on Fred Phelps a, um, "widely disliked" individual with a "peculiar" interpretation of Christianity that most consider greatly at odds with the actual teachings of the religion he professed to follow. Nevertheless, as he said he was a Christian, the article also says that, even as it also mentions that the church he founded "is widely considered to be a hate group". Likewise, Oliver Cromwell's article also refers to him as a Christian despite "commit genocide" not being a generally accepted response to "What Would Jesus Do?" Egsan Bacon (talk) 16:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Egsan Bacon, if there were a commonly used term available such as Christianist or Jewishist I would advocate the use of these terms as well as in connection to related subjects of terrorism. Wikipedia does not say in its voice that Islamism is either in or out of Islam although it is fair for Wikipedia to comment on both views. I think that the issue of neutrality can be viewed from the opposite view that you present. You say, "This is, essentially, an attempt to say that certain people who profess to be members of a religion are not, in fact, members of that religion in Wikipedia's voice." I say, "This is, essentially, an attempt not to say that certain people who profess to be members of a religion are certainly members of that religion in Wikipedia's voice." More importantly it is an attempt not to declare terrorism to be part of Islam.

Like, I believe, many people may, I regard terms Christian terrorism, Jewish religious terrorism and Islamic terrorism to be Oxymorons. In many respects, terms are in utter contradiction to each other. At least in the sense of Islam, the term Islamism is available so as to allow the contradiction to be expressed. Wikipedia readers can then read for themselves to decide whether Islamism and Terrorism are Islamic. NPOV indicates that we should not state an opinion such as that a commonly themed form of terrorism is Islamic. GregKaye ✍♪ 08:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

As the blue link indicates, Christianist is a word; the other one you're looking for ("Jewishist") is Zionist. 02:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes we do have Jewish extremism {their religion is Judaism). Same for Christian extremism (those whom take Christianity as their faith). Islamist extremism would than make more sense in line with the others. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 10:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support per WP:NPOV and basic facts. The terrorism isn't Islamic; it is not derived from Islam, its scriptures, doctrines or traditions. It is Islamist, because it is the product of Islamism, i.e. that particular blend of Islamic fundamentalist reinterpretation, Islam-focused trans-nationalism, Islam-centrism, Islam supremacy, and aggression against non-Islamic nations and peoples, that we call "Islamism". As a zillion people before me have pointed out, the average Muslim does not support Islamist terrorism. Calling it "Islamic terrorism" is pure propaganda, and an anti-Islam slur. (And, no, I'm not Muslim, nor Christian, nor religious at all; I have no dog in this fight). WP:COMMONNAME does not trump reliable factuality, otherwise we'd have an article not a redirect at Haley's Comet.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support I see what you mean. Its actually some Islamists (extremists within Islam) that commit these so called "religious terrorism". Saadkhan12345 (talk) 10:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - per TFD. I agree that most Muslims wouldn't want to be associated with it and condemn it, but they are the ones that do it in the first part in the name of Jihad and Mahomet based on the religious incitement and intolerance. Just condemning a thing won't make others to avoid attribution. Other example is Christian terrorism. Cheers. Faizan 17:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support Terrorism cannot be islamic. It can only be islamist. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Unsourced claims

"Although the murder of Muslims is always forbidden in Islam,[citation needed] the murder of non-Muslims is also prohibited in certain circumstances." OK so there's already a citation needed tag for the first half of the sentence, but I don't think that the second half of the sentence should be in the article without something backing it up, can someone with knowledge about Islam please address this? Shiningroad (talk) 06:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

It is followed by "Many Muslim scholars have presented subjective evidence against the religious justification of terrorism against certain non-Muslims, a notable example being that of Muhammad ibn al Uthaymeen who states regarding killing a non-Muslim who is living in an Islamic state or with whom Muslims have a peace treaty:[104] "As for a non-Muslim living under Muslim rule and a Mu’āhid (a Non-Muslim ally with whom Muslims have a treaty, trust, peace, or agreement), the prophet said: “Whoever kills a Mu’āhid will not even smell the fragrance of paradise and its fragrance can be smelled from the distance of forty years away.”[citation needed] and he also said: “Certainly, one of the most difficult situations for which there is no turning back for whomever casts himself into it - shedding sacred blood without right.”[citation needed] However this does not address the killing of non-Muslims living outside the Islamic world who do not have a specific treaty with Muslims." but so much citation needed! Shiningroad (talk) 06:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)