Jump to content

Talk:Islamic terrorism/Proposed name change

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I respectfully suggest that the basic terms of this debate are flawed and defy anyone to successfully differentiate between political and religious Islam. The avowed objective of Islam (in all its flavors, religious, cultural, political, et al) is to make the entire world live under sharia. A "religion of peace"? Well, yes, I grudgingly agree that is so--but only "peace" under sharia law where you can choose to convert, live as a third-class citizen, or die. THAT's the Islamic vision of "peace". Sharia is as sharia does and there is NO difference between religion and politics in a muslim world where religious terrorism and political terrorism are simply two complementary means of accomplishing the over-arching objective of world-wide sharia. Yes, Susan, world-wide Islamic Terrorism exists.Westernesse (talk) 01:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested Name change from Islamic terrorism to Islamic political violence

[edit]
I suggest we keep it the way it is now. Warmonger and chief terrorist Muhammad (shit be upon him) would have wanted it that way because he is the one that advocated the terror and murder in the first place. --83.84.46.69 (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is terrorism. "Political violence" doesn't cover it. Besides, we are talking about IslamIC terrorism, not IslamIST. Big difference. 9/11, suicide bombings, etc. are all acts of terrorism. Take your support of terrorists elsewhere. Thanks!

98.226.26.89 (talk) 01:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree strongly with name change. terorism is a well accepted term all over the world and and is easy to define. wikipedia ia an encyclopedia not a forum to decide what is the politically correct term to call acts like 9/11.
There you go brother your real feelings came out. Unless you stop hating something you cannot find good in it.. I know usually non muslims read Quran to find what is written in Quran against them. But just quoting it out of context dosnt do any good. Yes you are right, long beard or a muslim name dosnt mean you know everything about religion but not hurting ur feelings I am not ready to accept this either that a person from other religion tells me he know my religion better. About Saudi's I dont even want to discuss, in my opinion they dont present islam in the way it should be. But again for wise dont judge it by people go to the scriptures.... I will again say Islam is a religion that teaches peace not terrorism, which makes the term Islamic terrorism invalid. You say read quran again I do it everyday and no were I found a verse which say go and terrorize people. If you find a verse please come forward with it... and off the records you are my long lost brethren, were exactly in Ram munshi bagh is it near Stadium.... Oniongas (talk) 16:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original Research is not welcome. Islamic Terrorism is the correct term, it's terrorism that finds it's excuse (whether correct or not) in non-political Islamic texts. The End. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

seeing that there was "no consensus" in the discussion of Islamic terrorism vs. Islamist terrorism, I maintain that the default is to move it back to Islamist terrorism where the article was located for years before a flurry of undiscussed, unilateral moves [1]. Any move away from that title should be based on consensus beforehand. You cannot move stuff around without consensus and then claim there is no consensus to move it back. --dab (𒁳) 06:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The title goes against NPOV. Furthermore, it shows biasness and makes it sound like Islam itself, supports and teaches terror. Also, there is no reason to use such a loaded term that is seen as Islamophobic by many people. A more accurate and NPOV term would be "Muslim extremist political violence" or "Islamist political violence"; in the same way that Zionist political violence and Palestinian political violence are so named.Knight Prince - Sage Veritas (talk) 18:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation is taking place below, too. I am copying my two cents in here.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I'm not saying that its supposed to be pejorative. 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) 01:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is definitely better to use the word Islamist rather than Islamic - Islamism describes the motivation better than Islam. I am pretty neutral on the word terrorism. On the one hand if you use the word terrorism you can get into arguments about whether a particular action was or wasn't terrorism. On the other hand, a more general word like violence or militancy might be too broad. On balance, I think I am in favour of Islamist militancy. The less extreme examples of militancy would naturally get less coverage as they are less notable. Yaris678 (talk) 17:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree with Yaris678 on the change from Islamic to Islamist. Islamic refers to things related to Islam, which is a religion, while Islamist refers to things related to Islamism which is a political ideology. I would support a change to Islamist political violence as this in keeping with other names such as Zionist political violence and Palestinian political violence and also decouples the article from Islam as well as from terrorism which is a very politically loaded word. Cefarix (talk) 03:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


"Islamist violence" is the best description of this topic (I would also be amenable to "Islamist terrorism". "Islamist militancy" incorrectly suggests military conflicts between armed soldiers, not violence against civilians. "Islamist political violence" is not bad, but incomplete; most of this violence was motivated by politics but all of it was motivated by religion. 99.40.210.32 (talk) 21:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should take this to the WP:AC, so we can have a binding solution.--JokerXtreme (talk) 09:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Militant Islamic extremism"? There is nothing Islamic in "Islamic terrorism". Islam has moderate and radical versions around the world. The Islam of the Taliban or Al Qaeda, the Islam of Saudi Arabia, the Islam of the Subcontinent, the Islam of Turkey or in Southeast Asia all have major differences.--202.191.127.5 (talk) 20:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Islam supports violence period. They started as a pseudo-military cult which teaches that all who do not believe it are evil and must be downtrodden and eventually destroyed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serialkillerwhale (talk • contribs) 21:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes to "islamist", No to "political violence" I lean towards "Islamist terrorism". "Islamic" suggests something that is a part of the religion Islam. Whether or not true Islam supports terrorism cannot be determined, simply because one cannot determine what is true Islam. "Islamist" on the other hand suggests relation to Islamism, a political movement (or movements) which is less problematic to define. The term "terrorism" should be kept for clarity. (I am not religious). Haavard Ostermann (talk) 11:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a forum for factual data, not espousing political correctness. Whether or not Islam and the Quran condone this kind of terrorism is largely irrelevant in this case. The article is about terrorism that is being committed by people who (rightly or wrongly) believe they are Muslims and (again rightly or wrongly) committing these acts in the name of Islam, therefore to me Islamic Terrorism is the correct title. (Sk8er boi6000 (talk) 02:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

  • Support changing to Islamic political violence with redirects from Islamic terrorism and Islamist terrorism. The term "terrorism" is inherently non-neutral. Even the article on Al Qaida doesn't call the group a terrorist group. Using a neutral term would follow WP:Terrorist and would line up with Zionist political violence et cetera, which would be more neutral and would follow WP:NAME's statement about consistency. The term "Islamic terrorism" is only common in some Western media and is not used in non-Western media. In addition, not every violent political action Hamas, Al Qaida, the Islamic Jihad, and other groups engage in could reasonably be called terrorism. For instance, Hamas's attacks on Israeli military targets have obvious motivations other than inducing terror. Moving the article to Islamist political violence would permit discussion of other violent political groups, actions, and methods that are extremely similar and warrant discussion but which do not constitute terrorist groups, actions, or methods.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 22:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another reasonable option would be to use either "Islamic terrorism" or "Islamist terrorism" and discuss the terms from a neutral perspective. That's what has been happening on the article recently, and it would be a good way to prevent it from developing into a list filled with accusations of terrorism coupled with Islam and Islamism (as happened to the terrible article on Jewish religious terrorism). I'm beginning to side with that more. However, we should not label groups such as Al Qaida and Hamas terrorist organizations at face value; we should only cite who has labelled them that. The articles on Al Qaida and Hamas are good examples that adhere to WP:Terrorist.  dmyersturnbull  ⇒ talk 23:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 10:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic terrorism → Islamic political violence — Suggested Name change from Islamic terrorism to Islamic political violence. AnandVisho (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.
  • Oppose Christian and Jewish terrorism are topics, so why not Islamic terrorism? The term is used throughout the globe to refer to global terrorism which is linked to Islam. Also, why is Islam so much more sacred than other religions that we shouldn't call terrorism terrorism but we should for non-Muslims? Also, Islamic terrorism is very distinct from Christian terrorism or Jewish terrorism, in that its reach is global. Not even Bush's actions were "Christian terrorism" even if you think the war on terror is terrorism itself because he didn't seek to convert people and force them to accept canonical law.Tallicfan20 (talk) 04:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New name suggestion: Terrorism in the name of Islam

[edit]

There is no such thing as "Islamic Terrorism." Islam, nor any Muslim, nor anything in the Quran, rewards any form of terror. Terrorist who call themselves Muslim or say that they study Islam are taking the name of Islam in vain. They are not really Muslims, they are just taking the name of it and using it to justify terrorist acts. So, I think it would be best to name the article "Terrorism in the name of Islam" because that implies someone doing a terrorist act in the name of Islam. It does not mean that it is Islamic type terrorism (which does not exist) like the name currently implies. Thank you. CantoV (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about Islamist terrorism? Supertouch (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's much better actually. Islamist being a radical political creed while Islamic refering to the religion of Islam itself. I'd like to see it change to that! CantoV (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are other discussions of a possible name change above and perhaps in the archives as well. Maybe there is consensus? Supertouch (talk) 20:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you do it? I'll do it myself. CantoV (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator help with the title change

[edit]

Can an administrator, or some other learned person, please help us change the title from 'Islamic terrorism' to 'Islamist terrorism'? It would be much appreciated. Distal24 (talk) 05:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Islamist Terrorism

[edit]

Islamist terrorism is the preferred word in media use.it should be islamist not islamic.Linguisticgeek (talk) 13:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


RfC: Title change discussion

[edit]

I see there are a lot of discussions scattered all over the page for a name change of the title. So I made this topic, to make things more efficient and be able to reach a consensus. I've also made a request for comments. --JokerXtreme (talk) 10:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Terrorism is the wrong term. That would imply that in Islam there is terrorism which is a contradiction in itself considering the meaning of terrorism and also considering Islam itself and it's rules. It is Islamist and should rightfully be changed as soon as possible. CantoV |talk 13:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article name changes need to be based on wikipedia policies. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While, I kinda agree with you CantoV, there are articles like Christian terrorism and [Jewish terrorism]]. Although I think all of these titles should be changed. This article has one more reason: with all this mass hysteria about terrorism, it seems like the term promotes a stereotype about Muslim people (or Arabs). What do you mean Sean?--JokerXtreme (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that arguments based on our personal opinions about the meanings and possible implications of words aren't relevant. The name of the article needs to comply with WP:NAME so we need to figure out what it should be called according to the majority of reliable sources that deal with this issue. I would hope that it's 'Islamist' rather than 'Islamic' but I don't know what the majority of the sources say. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that "serious" sources won't use either of the terms. My other guess is that wikipedia, having an article with the current name for quite some time, might have affected writers. But those are just speculations, we need to actually make some sort of reasearch. --JokerXtreme (talk) 15:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My source is the definition of the word. Islamic definitions:

Muslim: of or relating to or supporting Islamism; "Islamic art" [2]

Of, pertaining to, originating in, characteristic of, or deriving from Islam [3]

Definitions of Islamist:

a scholar who knowledgeable in Islamic studies an orthodox Muslim [4]

A person who espouses Islamic fundamentalist beliefs; A Muslim, particularly an orthodox Muslim; A person who specializes in Islamic studies; Motivated by Islamic beliefs, particularly in the political sphere (eg a supporter of the introduction of sharia law); Relating to Islam, particularly ... [5]

Based on the actual definition of the word the article is mis-titled. What more do you need? Do you really need sources for this or a consensus? CantoV |talk 17:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the article needs to comply with WP:NAME. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, although I think it is important to keep the sentence in the lead I added:
The term, (or discourses using the term), have been attacked as "counter-productive", "unhelpful", "highly politicized, intellectually contestable" and "damaging to community relations".[3]
The point is there have been hundreds, probably thousands, of lethal attacks on civilians (widely regarded as terrorism) in recent years by groups fighting for they believe is true Islam. It is widely considered to be Islamic terrorism. It is an important world phenonenum. And an encyclopedia should have a article about it. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"It is widely considered to be Islamic terrorism". Do you have any data to back up that statement ? Data that shows whether it's widely considered to be Islamic terrorism or more/less widely considered to be Islamist terrorism so that we can determine the common name per WP:COMMONNAME would be quite handy. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What you are saying means that the title of the article is not in correspondence with its content. We actually agree. --JokerXtreme (talk) 11:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep current title. A quick Google search indicates that the term "Islamic terrorism" is used 4 times more often than "Islamist terrorism" and and 12 times more often than "Islamic violence". WP:NAME specifies that the title should reflect the most common usage, which is clearly Islamic terrorism by a huge margin. Please note that we must respect the way people actually speak, not the way we wish they would. Doc Tropics 03:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Islamic Terrorism is the wrong term. That would imply that in Islam there is terrorism which is a contradiction in itself considering the meaning of terrorism and also considering Islam itself and it's rules. It is Islamist and should rightfully be changed as soon as possible." - Oh boy. Political correctness is everywhere. It is wikipedia's job to present the information as it is seen and recorded elsewhere, not as how one fantasizes or dogmatizes it to be. Gabr-el 04:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the name change

[edit]

"Islamic terrorism" is indeed the more common term used by the news and everyday people, as a search on Lexis Nexis or Google News will clearly indicate. Additionally, this article is following the lead of christian terrorism and Jewish religious terrorism.

Those who suggest that this be called "islamist terrorism" are pushing their POV, i.e. their agreement with those scholars who think it is a more accurate and specific term. In contrast, those who have successfully changed this article's name to "Islamic terrorism" need not rely on their POV-- they can just point to Wikipedia Guidelines such as WP:NAME which support using the more common term from reliable sources.

The same goes for those who are suggesting a change from "terrorism" to "political violence". Once again, just because your POV is that the incidents here do not qualify as terrorism, what matters is what reliable sources tend to say, in following with Wikipedia naming policies.

I predict that this page will always be contentious, but I'm just writing here to commend those editors who are keeping it properly named. Keep up the good work, and hopefully the article can grow towards greater quality.--23:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.56.131.4 (talk)

On what basis are you claiming that "Islamic terrorism" is more common than "Islamist terrorism"? On Google, the search term "Islamist terrorism" gets more search results than "Islamic terrorism". In addition, Europe's largest criminal intelligence agency, Europol, classifies it as "Islamist terrorism", not "Islamic terrorism". In what way is the term "Islamic terrorism" any more valid than "Islamist terrorism"? Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 14:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim terrorism

[edit]

Can we change the article's name to Muslim terrorism?--478jjjz (talk) 01:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you search Muslim Terrorism on Google News you get twice as many hits. Seems it would end up having the same issues as Islamic Terrorism but it's clear that one of these two is the most commonly used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.253.224 (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamic_terrorism/Proposed_name_change&oldid=1142351569"