Talk:Islamic terrorism/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Islamic terrorism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Qur'an Quotes

1. "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority: their abode will be the Fire: And evil is the home of the wrong-doers!" (Qur'an 3:151)[1]

2. "How many a township have We destroyed! As a raid by night, or while they slept at noon, Our terror came unto them. No plea had they, when Our terror came unto them, save that they said: Lo! We were wrong-doers." (Qur'an 7:4-5)[2]

3. "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.'" (Qur'an 8:12)[3]

4. "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." (Qur'an 8:60)[4]

5. "Lo! those who disbelieve spend their wealth in order that they may debar (men) from the way of Allah. They will spend it, then it will become an anguish for them, then they will be conquered. And those who disbelieve will be gathered unto hell,"(Qur'an 8:36)[5]

6. "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful."(Qur'an 9:5)[6]

7. "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." (Qur'an 9:29)[7]

8. "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!" (Qur'an 9:30)[8]

9. "And the True Promise draweth nigh; then behold them, staring wide (in terror), the eyes of those who disbelieve! (They say): Alas for us! We (lived) in forgetfulness of this. Ah, but we were wrong-doers!" (Qur'an 21:97) [9]

10. "He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may make it conqueror of all religion however much idolaters may be averse."(Qur'an 61:9) [10]

11. "On the Day when (some) faces will be whitened and (some) faces will be blackened; and as for those whose faces have been blackened, it will be said unto them: Disbelieved ye after your (profession of) belief ? Then taste the punishment for that ye disbelieved."(Qur'an 3:106)[11]

12. "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." (Qur'an 4:56) [12]

13. "And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do." (Qur'an 8:39) [13]

14. "O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you twenty steadfast they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be of you a hundred (steadfast) they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they (the disbelievers) are a folk without intelligence." (Qur'an 8:65)[14]

15. "Lo! those who disbelieve, among the People of the Scripture and the idolaters, will abide in fire of hell. They are the worst of created beings."(Qur'an 98:6)[15]

16. "Say: (It is) the truth from the Lord of you (all). Then whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve. Lo! We have prepared for disbelievers Fire. Its tent encloseth them. If they ask for showers, they will be showered with water like to molten lead which burneth the faces. Calamitous the drink and ill the resting-place!" (Qur'an 18:29)[16]

17. "These twain (the believers and the disbelievers) are two opponents who contend concerning their Lord. But as for those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them; boiling fluid will be poured down on their heads,Whereby that which is in their bellies, and their skins too, will be melted;And for them are hooked rods of iron.Whenever, in their anguish, they would go forth from thence they are driven back therein and (it is said unto them): Taste the doom of burning." (Qur'an 22:19-22)[17]

84.146.210.194 19:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it Only Me Doing Vandalism or You People Too?

Who told you people to collect all those verses from Quran which "You" and only "You" non-muslims think to be preaching terrorism? Is this Wikipedia thing really secular? If I post here something then you people say I am doing vandalism. You people please dont vandalize by collecting the verses of Quran Randomly 'out of context' and putting at the top of this page.

when I put some non-christians' critics content on the song of solomon as reference, then immediately people come and say "oh, this is vandalism". You people see that to be vandalism because you see song of solomon as sacred/holy for you. Yet you people dont accept any explanation given by Muslims about these verses of Quran you have quoted above. You people cant see the totally explicit sexual imaginations in song of solomon, but you people are right here to Quote random verses of Quran and yet pretend to be secular/neutral? VirtualEye 13:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

- I am going to do the best I can at answering this; First off, let's look at your most recent edits to Song of Solomon, which can be found at [18]. The text here is extremely opinionated and does not even remotely adhere to Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. If you are going to repeatedly add information to the Song of Solomon page, please present it as fact, not opinion. We would be glad to accept your well-researched, cited information. What you originally added to the article was blatantly opinionated and taken from a sketchy-at-best source.

Though I am certainly not an expert on the Qu'ran, I am assuming that most (if not all) of these quotes are at least somewhat out of context. Why don't you try explaining the context of these quotes using the guidelines above? I do think that you would be a great editor to this topic and the Islam chain in general if you edited in an appropriate manner. Hojimachong 04:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

- The explanations about the context of Qur'anic verses has been given in hundreds of cites. The site answering-christianity.com seems to be biased site to you. If you look at the anti-Islamic websites then you would be more mature to know that this website is actually debunking the false allegations put by massive number of anti-Islamic websites. So, who would say its a fact or not? Is everything presented in wikipedia a fact? Whatever the few media channels are brainwashing Americans means those things become facts? I give you an example: There is not even a single verse in Qur'a which can be seen as shameful or sexually explicit (literally or metaphorically), While millions of non-christians can clearly see many many verses of Song of Solomon to have explicit sexual terminologies and imaginations. The only disagreement is about the literal or metaphorical meaning of Song of Solomon.

So if a website debunks the allegations of anti-Islamists so intensively then ofcourse it will look very jaw breaking for a person who was expecting those allegations to be true.

I hope you understand. And please be patient on my language, maybe I am not very polite in my talk, but I hope you understand when I see huge rubbish allegations by huge number of editors in wikipedia while there are very few Muslims to defend. Ofcouse when you call someone's mother as bitch and then fakingly present that as a fact, then that person will not be nice innocent baby, instead that person will show his annoyance more aggresively. Pardon if you are heart by my any point. VirtualEye 09:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

-Yes, Answering-Christianity.com does seem to be a biased site to me. To you, it seems perfectly reasonable. Is that to say that if I cited a site full of anti-Muslim biases and called it perfectly valid, I'm sure you would be quite offended. You do mention that "There is not even a single verse in Qur'a which can be seen as shameful or sexually explicit (literally or metaphorically), While millions of non-Christians can clearly see many many verses of Song of Solomon to have explicit sexual terminologies and imaginations." Did it occur to you that many non-Muslims may see explicit or violent verses is the Qu'ran?

Your editing does reflect a large level of bias on your part, and while a strong opinion is crucial to building Wikipedia, I merely ask that you present your opinions in an appropriate format, with multiple sources to back it up. You are fighting a tough battle, my friend, and I applaud you for sticking to your beliefs. Good luck in your battles. Hojimachong 15:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what your intention with these quotes is; The Quran, like every other religious book, contains violent sections, partly in close relation to specific events, such as the Battle of Badr, some completely random. Many stand in contradiction to other passages which state exactly the opposite. There is no point in selecting deliberately negative passages and try to proof something with it. This is called inductive argumentation - have your opinion first and then look for evidence for this opinion. In this way, one can proof virtually everything, both in sciences and in humanities. It is not academic though, neither is it fair, in particular when one has the possibility to impact the opinion of many hundrets of thousands of readers, who may not be able to distinguish opinion from fact. You may also be surprised that very similar passages are present in the Old Testament, and in parts even in the New Testament. This is irrelevant for Islam but be sure that quoting deliberately one-sided passages won't add towards any proper understanding of the Quran, Islam, Islamism, and the way radicals use these passages.

Regards, --Arabist 16:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Hojimachong, you wrote: >>" Did it occur to you that many non-Muslims may see explicit or violent verses is the Qu'ran? I mentioned about Sexually explicit (if you see carefully), otherwise there are non-muslims who say there are violent verse in Qur'an and Muslims say there are violent verses in Bible or other Books. But Qur'an does NOT have any 'sexually explicit' verse (literally or metaphoricaly) but ofcourse Christian editors here will not see this (so called being neutral). I dont give every reference to tell about fetishes in other religious books while all those Islamophobic anti-Islamist seem to be fully equiped just to give 1001 rubbish references against Islam. Does giving a refence make an article more authentic? How about my article refers to my own text on the same page then? The matter is that, you have to come up with solid arguments and not just rubbish sites with Islam hatered.

When the site answering-christianity.com debunks the false allegations of Anti-Islamists then people forget that a Muslim is not a Muslim if he even think of disgracing Jesus (PBUH). At the same time it is the part of faith of Muslims that Jesus is a highly honored Prophet of God. Muslims cant even think of disgracing him through any means, they dont make cartoons of Jesus to disgrace him, while you will see | this video on the top 100 google videos. They make every kind of ugly cartoons or whatever. An when I say we give more respect then you come to ask me for references of my claims. You have to open your eyes to see by yourself too. I cant simply fight the editing war with a thousand anti-Islamist here.

Can you clearly distinguish the overall impact of the pages about Islam and the pages about other religions ? All the hatered is just for pages related to Islam. If a person is atheist, he is participant on Islam, if a person is christian, he is participant of Islamic content. How many Muslims you see editing about Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism on wikipedia? and how many you see against Islam? Its so simple to see, yet you need reference from me.

"Since it is logically impossible to prove a universal negative, science will never be able to prove anything which is claimed to be existing"[19]

I mentioned above statement with reference. Does this reference make this statement more reliable? that statement has also been written by some human, right?

The situation of articals on wikipedia is like this: 1- you bring allegations then you ask the victims to disprove with references. 2- When victims say they are very few and dont have enough resources to prove their innocense. 3- You declare them guilty.

Same is the situation of Muslims on wikipedia. Muslim countries have much less resources of internet, more worries about their basic necessities. They are not get paid to throw filth on other religion and call them terrorist etc. VirtualEye 10:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

And one more thing Mr. chong and Mr. Arabist. About the topic Islmist Terrorism. Giving the refernce of an American website or institution makes it terroris? This is so called authentic refernce? that same source which invaded Iraq in the name of "weapons of mass destruction"? Did they find? Do I need reference to prove that Tony Blair and Mr. Bush told severe lies or do I need to spend my whole life to bring references? Or are you people so much disabled that I have to make it somehow realize the truth?

Where did you hear the name of Alqaeeda first? from USA Regime and Media. Where did you hear the name of Osama bin laden? from USA Regime and Media. Osama bin laden did 9/11 attacks? Because USA says that. Taliban is terrorist org? Because US Regime and Media says that. The people fighting in East Timor were freedom fighters, so U.N's so called Justice immediately gave them freedom, and the organization 'Lashkr Tayyabah' fighting for freedom in Kashmir, is simply terrorist because? USA says that.

Kill Kernel Qadaffi, because he is dictator. Hail to the dictator Musharraf becaues he is the friend of Pakistan. Bomb Iraq to bring so called Democracy. Bomb Afghanistan to bring so called democracy. And when Hamas wins elections in Palestine then act like you dont even know what democracy is, and simply refuse to accept Hamas government. When Hizbulla fires rockets, that is terrorism. When Israel bombs and kills 80 children in a single building the Israel retaliates.

Do you people have a single Muslims' terrorist groups which was not declared terrorist by USA in the first hand? Every certification comes from your so called "RELIABLE REFERENCE" which has been given in 1000000000000001 pages of wikipedia to fake it look like reliable.

VirtualEye 11:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I can carry on to refer my examples, but my point is,,,, All certifications for terrorism come from the biggest hypocrite country of the world.

-Calm down. I'm not here to tell you that your opinions are not valid; I'm telling you that you aren't presenting them correctly and therefore they are being reverted. I don't really know what specific point you are making, so I will work my way down your text to see what can be said.

The video you reference is not listed in the Top 100 Google videos. I did not bother to check the individual categories Top 100, because it is not what you referenced. If you are insulted by this video, that's O.K., but Christianity does not have laws forbidding Jesus from being shown in this fashion. Christianity does not have laws preventing Muhammad from being shown either. Neither does Denmark. A quote from [20] says "We have a tradition of satire when dealing with the royal family and other public figures, and that was reflected in the cartoons. The cartoonists treated Islam the same way they treat Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions. And by treating Muslims in Denmark as equals they made a point: We are integrating you into the Danish tradition of satire because you are part of our society, not strangers. The cartoons are including, rather than excluding, Muslims." Muslims demand to be treated with respect, claiming that they are not violent murderous, yet when the cartoons are published, massive riots occur around the world. We are not bound by your rules forbidding physical expression of Muhammad, and therefore shouldn't be kept from showing Muhammad. Since the video originated in the U.S., where freedom of speech and expression apply, then there is nothing you can do to
The site answering-Christianity.com supports the Nazi party; "The US and Europe, while their media always portray them as peaceful and civilized nations, would wipe out entire nations from the face of the earth if their interests are threatened. I think World Wars I and II clearly prove my point. In WWII alone, more than 50 million people were killed, and triple that amount were injured."

Could this statement be construed in any possible way as not extreme? We wiped out Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan because they were aggressors who attacked us first. According to Islam, attacking another nation in defense/retaliation to their offenses is perfectly acceptable. Therefore, the U.S.'s involvement in WW2 was justifiable under the laws of Islam.

The quote you give from the site[21] is ""Since it is logically impossible to prove a universal negative, science will never be able to prove anything which is claimed to be existing." The actual quote from that site is "Since it is logically impossible to prove a universal negative, science will never be able to prove that creatures like Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster do not exist." OK, now we know that we cannot prove that Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster exist. And this relates to this discussion how...? A quote has to be verbatim, you can't just go changing a few words to make it suit your viewpoint.
"Muslim countries have much less resources of internet, more worries about their basic necessities. They are not get paid to throw filth on other religion and call them terrorist etc." IF you are here to show us the plight of Muslim countries, save it. The only place it could possibly have in this article is showing how poverty may drive impressionable youth to a Madrassa for terrorist training. If you want to complain about the state of Muslims, go to another article. If you are here just to argue without wanting to contribute to the article, then leave.
"Taliban is terrorist org? Because US Regime and Media says that." The U.S. Government never classified the Taliban as a terrorist organization. If you believe they did, then Cite the source that shows that they did. You complain about having to cite sources; this is the basis of all of Wikipedia!
"I can carry on to refer my examples, but my point is,,,, All certifications for terrorism come from the biggest hypocrite country of the world." You have no evidence to say that we are the biggest hypocrite in the world, or you are holding us to a double standard. Are you to say that governments such as the Taliban were not hypocritical? In theory they governed in the name of Islam, in practice they governed as a thuggish regime.

As you can see, in less than two pages of text I managed to quickly identify and refute four false statements. Does this effectively demonstrate the importance of citing your sources? There is nothing more important than citing your sources. Nothing. Let me tell you my standpoint, just so you don't arbitrarily bunch me in with the "ignorant Americans": I do not support the war in Iraq. I do think that a few bad eggs give Islam a black eye. I do think that Muslims who carry out attacks on innocent civilians should be classified as terrorists, and hunted down mercilessly. There is one key difference between American violence in the middle east and 9/11: In the middle east, nearly all civilian casualties were accidental incidents of collateral damage. 9/11 deliberately targeted innocent men, women, and children. So please, read my comments and decide how you can be taken seriously as an editor. You come to Wikipedia and nominate highly-relevant and important articles for deletion, and then go on spouting unreferenced information onto this Encyclopedia. I could not find a specific question for me in your last comment, so I responded the best I could. If you have one specific point to make, please do so in your next comment. Is it the anti-Islam POV in the article? Is it the out-of-context quotes from the Qu'ran? Is it annoyance over reverted edits of yours? Make a specific point so we can help you out to a further extent.Hojimachong 06:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, its your point of view that you refuted my statements and it is your point of view that my statements are false.

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking. I think you did not read my allegations clearly, I mentioned 'American Regime', not Americans. You might feel something personal when I refer, but its not the case. But for one thing I must blame them, that is either ignorance or belief in illusion of knowledge which is more worse in accordance to above quote. For the moment, I would just refer you two short videos to open your mind. And please not, these two sources are not compiled by any Muslims. After watching if you agree then I will proceed replying all your comments you have mentioned before, otherwise I think this debate will keep on going. 1- | Source 1 2- fair.org

Now after watching the source number 1, you would come to know that You are simply no different than other media victims, calling middle east incidents as collateral damage. (sorry if you feel disgraced again. I might be much harsh in writing and my writing must not be upto wikipedia standard in this talk, but this was not so until I became sick of hacking of wikipedia by hypocrite people to make it as rubbish as CNN or Skynews (if you really dont know how rubbish are CNN And Sky news then please let me know)

Thanks for you time anyway, VirtualEye 08:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

While I do appreciate the depth of the discussion we are having, it does not really fit this article's talk page anymore. I will entertain this last round of questioning here, but if you want to continue our discussion on my talk page. Having said that, I am insulted by the fact that you are arbitrarily grouping me as a "media victims." Show some respect. Part of a debate is the respect of your opponent's viewpoint, which allows you to tear it down all the better. The monolithic bloc which you stand a part of has been static and unresponsive to change since the 8th century, when the ideals and laws of Islam were still in their early and formative stages. Fundamental Islam and modern western culture are not currently compatible, and should ideally stick to the status quo.

However, while Palestine might not have been the best location of the Israeli state, it is there, and is not going anywhere anytime soon. This is because of the U.S.'s support of Israel. As I like to say, "America will remain the most powerful nation in the world. That’s how mankind works. You’re not safe because you can say to everyone "be nice", you’re safe because you can say "I'm much bigger than you." Unfortunately for Hizbullah, America can and will continue to support Israel. This does not mean that it's the "right" thing to do, but it is the best for U.S. interests. Every country in the world will ultimately try to influence the state of world politics to forward its own interests. That is what the U.S. is doing in Israel. I'll try to keep the patriotic rhetoric in the rest of the article to a minimum.

Having said that, I am ambivalent to the Israeli-Lebanese 2006 conflict. While Hizbullah is righteously annoyed by Israel's occupation of their land, Israel has a right to defend itself. If it had withdrawn from Lebanon due to Hizbullah's pressure, they would have been emboldened and continued an offensive into Israel. But Israel could have tried a bit harder diplomatically to fix the situation.

You say "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is illusion of knowledge." Since you do bring about a quote earlier in this discussion (from [22]) About how a universal negative can never be proved. So, the quote at the top of this paragraph probably applies to each individual in it's own way, right?

If that is indeed the case (which you happen to think it is), Then I will offer this; Since I am a Christian, I do not subscribe to Islamic beliefs. So, in my eyes, you are a victim of the "illusion of knowledge." Does this mean that you are? No. Does this mean that you could be? Yes. Does this mean that I personally believe that you are? Yes. This applies to me equally. You obviously see me as under the "illusion of knowledge." Does this mean that I am? No. Does this mean that I could be? Yes. Does this mean that you personally believe that I am? Most likely. I do not want to put words in your mouth.

You also say that "you became sick of hacking of Wikipedia by hypocrite people to make it as rubbish as CNN or Skynews." We are not hypocrites, we are writers. We all have our personal beliefs which we hold dear. So, if many different people with many different points of view contribute, then the article will eventually become quite neutral. Most people hold CNN, BBC, the AP, etc. to be reliable and accurate news sources. This doesn't mean that they are neutral, because in fact they all have biases. But so does Al-Jazeera. So does answering-Christianity.com. So does fair.org, which asks you to email major news networks in support of the Palestinian people.

I will not be responding to any more comments here if they don't directly relate to this article and how you can make it better. I am very interested in continuing this discussion, but please, make your next comment on my Talk Page. Also, you didn't provide a source for your Steven Hawking quote. Hojima chong 06:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Hojimachong, I must say that I am in no means of insulting you personally but to mention the overall situaion of editors in major (not 100%).
I am not here to convert you to Islam or to tell you about falsity of Christianity. What I was expecting that you might have some silver lining in your heart. You can atleast identify what wrong is going on (as you mention the situation about Israel etc.) Being christian does not imply as the victim of illusion of knowledge but it can be victim of ignorance. Since this isse is not part of the debate I wont talk on this much but to make on point clear that Muslims are in a situation that they can not disgrace the personality of Jesus (PBUH) in any means because it is the part of their faith to honor him as Prophet. While Christian being deniers of our Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) most of them can very easily say anything bad whatever they can, because they will not give a damn whatever respect we have for their Holy Entity (Jesus PBUH). So the Muslims are in much higher restrictions, they are bound to give respect. (it is just what it is, no means here to again degrade you).
Being biased does not mean just the word 'biased'. Ofcourse every channel becomes biase in accordance to the ideology of its resourcers. But there should be a limit of hypocricy. 10 or 20% biase is in no means equal to the yelling terror terror 24hours a day at CNN. I doubt if you even give a damn to the atheist MIT professor Noam Chomsky and others like Michael Moore, Robert Fisk and George Galloway. Try to give out some of your precious time to unlearn from these people. They are no special except they are much more fair. They are not Muslims but they have somthing called 'conscience' in them.

You are herding every newschannel with the name 'biase'. Can you refernce a single moment when CNN used the phrase 'Israel attacked' or 'Israeli attack'? How many times they use the word 'Israel retaliates'? Always. This is their policy, while BBC uses this hypocricy much much less. Bother CNN and BBC are not the channels owned by Muslims, but they very prominent difference for the people who can see. Now if you say I am insulting people the please refer to the top 100 google videos, how many of them are based on intellect and good thinking? and how mahy are fetish? Most of people around are just entertainment loving idiots, they dont have time to brainstorm because CNN, CBC and FOX are there to think and pour into their mind. Try to be fair my friend. The time I put to write all these comments are the proof of the respect I gave you, because I cared.

Even now if you are not convinced, then just see the two articals to compare the fairness and hypocricy of editors here.

Christian terrorism (size of article and the startig content?) Islmist terrorism (how comprehenssive?)

In Christain terrorism Just after the first line of text, it is cunningly diverting the reader to a very very insignificant example of a person killing another 'one' person because of the dispute about abortion. How nice? In all 2 billion christians in the world, only this stupid example is available? All christians are pious? while this one murder is the biggest example of terrorism?

How about I define the "Islamic extremist terrorism" as the killing of Dr. ABC by some Moron? Will you accept that example in the article? I am 100% sure that you people will not let it place even at the end of article.

I, being a muslim believe that there are thousands of misinterpretters and wrong doers in the Muslim world. While you people cant confess this for christian world, right?

Is there anything despite the abortion issue in christians? They all are pious innocent pretty angles?

I know above comments are a bit harsh again, but I am in no means to again insult you here again, just try to think neutral from your conscience for few moments and not just being a sympathizer for Christians.

And one more thing I must answer from your earlier post, you said: >>The cartoonists treated Islam the same way they treat Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions.

Now my comment will be inflamatory but you must degest it for the sake of argument. If you allow your sister's private parts to be shot by photographers, does that mean It is obligation for me to let it do for my sister? If Christian allow the fetish cartoons and images about The Honored Jesus (PBUH) does that means Muslims must allow the ugly cartoons about their Prophet? (Even Muslims wont like Jesus (PBUH) to be portrayed). A Royal family does not comprise our faith. Faith is something beyond if you really are a Christian you must agree. If people do not mind their cartoons to be made then who allowed cartoonists to make cartoon of every person? How the hell a person make my cartoons and publish in papers without my permission? Its simply violation of my personal possessions and an abuse same as somebody can not print my picture. (there had been many cases of sue for taking and printing pictures) 1 2 3 If many people dont mind their cartoons then why take it as granted for every person of the world to make his cartoons? Just because those people think like this who allowed their own cartoons?

Thanks again for your time. VirtualEye 11:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr. VirtualEye,

I do want to contunue our wonderful debate, it no longer directly correlates to this article's subject matter, and has branched off to involve several different articles. Please ask these questions on my talk page. I would greatly enjoy continuing this discussion.

Hojima chong 15:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

npov tag

Could you please explain why you think this article does not adhere to NPOV? Thanks, --Urthogie 20:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Look at my comment just above your question. Thanks, VirtualEye 11:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Topic Renamed

This topic has renamed as the Jewish terrorism page has been consistingly renamed by Urthogie to "Zionist political violence" and my contributions have been reverted. I think we should permit to have religiosly motivated violence and terrorism pages with their proper names. You cannot make exception for either Islam or Christianty or Judaism or Hinduism. Siddiqui 21:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I actually renamed it Jewish extremist terrorism, which is in line with Islamic extremist terrorism. While I congragulate you for being bold, you should actually expect to be reverted for controversial edits on controversial issues if you choose not to use the talk page first. Thanks, --Urthogie 21:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The Jewish extremist terrorism page is now redirected to List of organisations involved in religious terrorism page. The Jewish terrorism , Zionist terrorism and Israeli terrorism pages have been reverted or/and redirected to other pages. Why don't we have also have the same rule for Islamic or Christian or Hindu terrorism pages ? I think Islamic extremist terrorism page should also be redirected to List of organisations involved in religious terrorism. Why did you revert and redirect my contribution to Jewish terrorism and Zionist terrorism several times ?

Siddiqui 22:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

This talk page is just for discussion of this page. What do you want this page to be called, and why? Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

(Deep sigh). This page must be treated in-itself. There are no rules for terrorism pages in general, nor should there be. Argue each topic 'alone, if you need to argue. That "Islamic extremist terrorism" exists is not a de facto reason to create "Jewish extremist terrorism". A given topic either does or does not have a profile worthy of encylcopediac treatment. There's no other way Wiki can treat this properly. Marskell 23:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. I am just objecting to systemic rediretion and reversion of Jewish terrorism, Zionist terrorism and Israeli terrorism pages. These pages have redirected to List of organisations involved in religious terrorism and State terrorism pages. When I decoupled these redirects and included relevent information Tom Harrison and Urthogie started and reverting and redirecting these pages. This is censorship and discrimination. Rules must apply equally to all types of religious terrorism.

Siddiqui 00:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been joining the debates here, since I'm still reading history and learning. But I would suggest that an article name like Islamism and terrorism would be more neutral, as it suggests that there is some association between the topics, or some debate, without implying that all Islamists are terrorists. Zora 23:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The people we are discussing here do not identify as "Islamist"--they identify as Muslim (which can be used as an adjective but is generally replaced in such instances with "Islamic"). With certain caveats they are identified as Mulsim by God (ie., Google) as well as by Anglo govt's. There are two archives devoted to this debate if you have some free time. Marskell 23:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, of course ... just as many Christian denominations believe that they are the only true Christians and other sects are ersatz. Still, Islamist is increasingly the accepted term (in journalism and academia) for the Wahhabi/Salafi/Deobandi/Qutbi/Khomeinist strain of thought. Even if those folks don't accept it. Zora 00:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Zora, Islamic terrorism or Islamic extremism are the most popular terms in the academy, the mainstream press, and on the internet as a whole.--Urthogie 14:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

My question is why are you and your friends systematically redirecting and reverting my contribution to Jewish terrorism, Zionist terrorism and Israeli terrorism ? This page should also be redirected to List of organisations involved in religious terrorism. I will again try to recouple those pages and redirect this page to List of organisations involved in religious terrorism. If anybody has objections then let them express it. We should have one policy towards all religious based terrorism.

Siddiqui 14:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

They aren't my "friends", theyre people I respect on the internet enough to discuss with before making decisions. As far as redirecting, I oppose, because this article is already bigger than the article you're suggesting it be redirected too. The whole point of a redirect is to either a)redirect an alternate phrasing of the article or b)redirect to wider ranging article because the redirect name is uncapable of being a non-stub. As you can see, neither a) nor b) is true, so this, I believe, should not be a redirect. By the way, thanks for using the talk page to reach consensus, instead of acting first. Thanks, --Urthogie 15:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I can understand what Siddiqui is talking about and I like Zora's idea. Urthogie one of the things you said you would do while you moved this page to Islamic extremist terrorism is that another article should exist on Jewish extremist terrorism and the Christian one as a reason for us to support the rename of this one. I don't see any good reason why the other article should be redirected but this isn't. But I think if we are going to keep this as an article then the other one should exist too. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 16:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, 99% of jewish terrorism is zionist terrorism (which does have an article). An article on that remaining one percent could never be more than a stub, so we set it to redirect.--Urthogie 15:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

But isn't calling all Jewish extremism Zionism incorrect. But similarly our article title is a bit off too. But does Jewish terrorism and Jewish extremist terrorism redirect to Zionist terrorism? I find that they redirect to "List of organisations involved in religious terrorism". --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 16:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I'll set them all to redirect to Zionist political violence.--Urthogie 16:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Or more fairly to Zionist terrorism like you said it redirects before.--a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 16:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I've suggested Zionist violence on the talk page. Please join discussion.--Urthogie 16:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this is for Zora. Most Christian denominations do not view themselves as the one true faith...most differences between Protastant sects are purely on minor issues and of course many of the "sects" originated from different parts of the world at around the same time. Most sects get along quite fine with others. This is not true of the differences in Islam where the differences are based on who was the true successor to Muhammad. but that is really beside the point, not all Muslims are terrorists but every terrorist that we face now is a Muslim.Culmo80 20:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)culmo80

Redirection to List of organisations involved in religious terrorism

This topic will be redirected to List of organisations involved in religious terrorism. If anybody has any objections and concerns please post them.

Siddiqui 14:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Where do you want to put the content that you will be replacing with the redirect? Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Same where you have contents about other religious terrorism.

Siddiqui 15:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. This article has more content than the article it is suggested it be redirected too, and it would thus be advised by wikipedia guidelines not to redirect it. Especially considering only one person suggests this, I think it would be completely irrational and unreasonable to go forward with this.--Urthogie 15:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Siddiqui, what page specifically? Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

He's suggesting this be redirected to the list of terrorism, thereby losing all the current content.--Urthogie 15:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Support The current article implies that there is a monolithic subject of Islamic/Islamist/Muslim (take your pick) terrorism. It puts a very diverse collection of groups, movements and ideologies into one bucket and makes some hand-waving statements to try and tie it all together. Redirecting to discussions of individual groups makes sense to me. --Lee Hunter 15:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Lee, Brittanica and Encarta don't run away from this subject. Why should we? Why should we, purely out of compromise, give up on the premise that we can cover every subject as any encyclopedia could-- youre essentially saying we should eliminate coverage of this diverse topic and replace it with a list.--Urthogie 15:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

So who's said anything about running away? What I'm suggesting is that this is an artificial subject that's pulling out something common (i.e. Islam) from a bunch of otherwise unrelated articles and treating it as if it were a subject in its own right. Can you provide a link to the Britannica or Encarta coverage of this subject? I did a quick search and couldn't find where they addressed this in the same way. In any case, I'm not sure that other encyclopedias provide any sort of standard now that WP is much larger than other reference works. --Lee Hunter 16:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what Siddiqui is proposing and Lee is supporting. What is to be done with the content that's presently on this page? Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I would support a renaming of List of organizations involved in religious terrorism to Religious terrorism, with see also links to Zionist terrorism, Christian terrorism, and Islamic extremist terrorism. The fact that theres no article on religious terrorism is very lame. I'll go there an propose a rename.--Urthogie 15:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't oppose that. I'm less concerned with names than with losing content. Based on recent experience, we'll rename everything again in a month anyway. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

the npov tag

The only issue you have raised (albeit unconvincingly) is a page rename. Please explain why the article is not NPOV?--Urthogie 15:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

This page has a redundant title. Just as there is a page for Christian terrorism, there should be a page on Islamic terrorism. Terrorism is an extreme action. The term "extremist" is a loaded perjorative label. The conetent on this page should remain. It should make it clear in the opening that Islam itself is not terrorist any more than any other religion. There has been a discussion at Islamofascism (term) about creating a page titled Islamic authoritarianism, but that title currently redirects to Neofascism and religion, which may or may not be a temporary solution. Terrorism and authoritarianism are related but not identical. Just my opinion.--Cberlet 13:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Repeated talk consensus is that the existence of Christian Terrorism or anything like it does not dictate the name appearing here. Islamic terrorism does not have support--I was fine with it but numerous other editors were not and it was voted down. Marskell 13:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

And I raise it again, because the name is redundant, provocative (as is Islamofascism), and not the title construction that an NPOV encyclopedia should have. I read the back discussion, and am making a suggestion. I know it is frustrating to have endless discussions, but this question is clearly not settled, and it seems more discussion is needed.--Cberlet 14:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It was chosen because it was deemed less provocative. Discuss away--there is at present basically zero chance this will move to Islamic terrorism. Marskell 14:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The only sensible suggestion that's been made lately is Zora's above, but it's rejected - just as this page was earlier moved - because of what I consider to be a deeply misguided idea that the page should have a title that privileges google counts or the usage of the US government over accuracy. Islamic terrorism is both provocative and inaccurate. The current title is merely inaccurate. So as we can't have an accurate title, let's settle for the least inadequate alternative. Palmiro | Talk 14:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Jeez, raw nerve endings. I understand the need for both sensitivity and accuracy. I spent many months working out disputes at Neofascism and relgion which has a section on Islam. A more neutral and accurate and sensitive title would take more words. Something like (after reviewing a bunch of other pages): Political violence by Islamic militants.--Cberlet 14:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, we're always going to be privileging something. "Islamist" privileges the academy. This privileges gov's, yes. It's clunky but it works. Most important I think is avoiding this "1, 2, 3 we have to be fair" logic with Christian, Muslim and Jewish pages. Marskell 14:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, raw nerve endings I must admit. It comes with living in this part of the world and seeing all the nonsense that the media in other parts of the world come up with about it, and then seeing it all again repeated on Wikipedia. I actually quite like your proposed alternative.

I don't at all agree with Marskell that "Islamist' privileges the academy. All the groups tralked about in this article are widely referred to as Islamist groups. I do however tend to agree with him about the idea that whatever formula is used in naming this article must be absolutely identical with that used for political violence inspired by Christian or Jewish religious ideologies. Palmiro | Talk 14:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think we disagree on both counts! I was saying whatever is used here should not be the de facto template for Christian and Jewish pages. Each should be evaluated individually. Marskell 14:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No I meant I agree with your disagreement with the idea blah blah blah; i.e. I do agree with you that each should be evaluated separately! 14:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

By far the most sensible suggestion (second only to redirecting to the list of terrorist groups) was Islam and terrorism. This sidesteps all those torturous questions about Islamic, Islamist and extremist. --Lee Hunter 14:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

But that, too, sound like it is about a different thing: how Islam relates to and views terrorism, and not just terrorism carried out by Islamic organizations. And in all this debate no-one has once disputed the point I repeatedly made that every single instance of terrorism and every single organization under consideration on this page was not simply an Islamic organization/attack but an Islamist one. Palmiro | Talk 14:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

As I recall, I wasn't opposed to Islam and terrorism but it does sound too much like the title of an essay rather than an encyclopedia page.

I think your point Palmiro was addressed repeatedly. Namely, that if you believe Islamist is an oxymoron and non-distinct from Islamic we should choose the more common latter item as a matter of course. Now (God help me) I'm going to have address the logic of this again but here goes: "Islamist" meaning "political Islam" tacitly contrasts with a putative "non-political Islam." Which is what, exactly? When and how has Islam qua Islam not been political? I can think of very specific contexts where deploying it makes sense ("Islamists" versus "securalists" in Turkey, say) but even here it doesn't seem like a word that needs inventing.

I absolutely have never understood the argument that taking the core adjective, Islamic, is somehow offensive. Timothy McVeigh was an American not an Americanist; the Inquisition was Christian not Christianist. You might say I should take this up with social scientists rather than with other Wikipedia editors, and indeed if Islamist achieves the same level of conventional usage as Islamic in contexts of this sort, then OK. But at present that does not appear to be the case as noted repeatedly in the archives. Marskell 15:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course Islamist means something distinct from Islamic. Islamism is an ideological and political tendency that claims that Islam mandates a particular form of goverment. Islamic is an adjective that means "having to do with Islam". Quite likely most Muslims are not Islamists. If you look at free elections in Muslim countries the majority of Muslims in Palestine do not vote for Islamist parties, they vote for Fatah or Hadash or Balad. In Syria's brief democratic period Islamists won feck-all of the vote (agreed that that was a long time ago) and secular parties won nearly everything. In Turkey many Muslims vote for non-Islamist parties. Are none of them proper Muslims? There is a world of difference between an "Islamic" organization and an "Islamist" one. One has a political project derived from an idea of Islam. The other does not necessarily have any such view. I think it is quite clear that Hamas, Hizbullah, Jaysh Muhammad, etc etc are all Islamists. Palmiro | Talk 17:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

McVeigh actions are not generally presented as springing from his American identity and he's not usually described as a "Christian terrorist". I've only ever heard the Inquisition referred to as the "Spanish Inquisition" not the "Christian Inquisition". --Lee Hunter 15:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Marskell that "Islamist" is not the main conventional usage, and it has been objected to by some Islamic groups for the reason above--that we don't refer to Christianist or Judaist in the same usage. And I point out that in regular encyclopedias there is an alignment of title forms across the entries becasue otherwise it confuses the heck out of the reader. Maybe not the same here with an online text.--Cberlet 15:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

"McVeigh actions are not generally presented as springing from his American identity." Disagree 1000 percent. Britannica: "American terrorist" [23]. Our own page: "American domestic terrorist." The survivalist and militia movements maybe cuckoo, but they are eminently American. Hey, this is an argument we need to have! Marskell 15:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Idea

I thought of a good compromise that doesn't favor the academy but should satisfy Palmiro: Islamic political terrorism.--Urthogie 15:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

But the problem nags here, too. Here is an unfortunate little story: Qu'ran apparently desecrated, two churches get burned in Pakistan [24]. Church burnings are relatively common in Pakistan and while I wouldn't call it terrorism as such (disorganized mobs are not necessarily terrorists) it certainly comes close. We need a label that can accomodate religious-sectarian stuff. Marskell 15:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This is sectarian mob violence, which I think is quite different from terrorism. Was the pillaging of Christian-owned businesses in Achrafiyyeh terrorism? Was the Damascus massacre of 1860 terrorism? Were any of the various anti-Christian mob attacks in Egypt in recent decades terrorism? Palmiro | Talk 18:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Damn.. Palmiro, Islamism doesn't seem to address stuff like that, so why have Islamist in the article title?--Urthogie 15:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

But here we are talking about violence by Islamists, not some sort of generic Islamic violence. See my reply to Marskell aboce. Palmiro | Talk 17:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

So why have "Islam" in the title or even "terrorism"? Why not just have an article entitled "Sectarian Violence" with references to sub-articles such as "Sectarian Violence in Pakistan"?--Lee Hunter 16:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Why 'in Pakistan?' Why 'sectarian?' Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting my example belongs as it stands or that this should lose a focus on terrorism. I was only pointing out that using the term "political" may be something of a straight jacket in certain instances. If, out of our disorganized mob, a dozen men get together, come up with a name to the effect of "Burn every Church in Pakistan," stockpile some weapons, and start agitating, you'd have a terrorist group--but not an especially political one. --Marskell 16:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

We need to mention Islam on this page title because all religions have factions that promote political violence, but we have an obligation as encyclopedists to not be routinely offensive to religions. So there needs to be a balance between what is accurate and NPOV, and what is sensitive and not offensive. It is a compromise. It would not be accurate to exclude mention of Islam in some way in the title. The issue is where is the proper balance between accuracy and offense. Se we need pages on Political violence by Islamic militants (both historic and contemporary); Political violence by Jewish militants (both historic and contemporary); Political violence by Christian militants (both historic and contemporary); Political violence by Hindu militants (both historic and contemporary); and because of regional geographic conflicts that are longstanding and violent, we also need a page on Political violence by Zionist and Israeli militants (both historic and contemporary); and Political violence by Palestinian militants (both historic and contemporary) or at least Political violence involving Israelis and Palestinians. --Cberlet 16:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course, you could choose to do what we did with the issue of neofascism, Neofascism and religion and ceate a page called Religion and political violence that covered multiple religions.--Cberlet 16:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Political violence by Islamic militants doesn't cover non-political violence, as Marskell pointed out. I really completely disagree with the word Islamism ever being the name of this article. It's like saying, Marxist terrorists aren't real marxists!--Urthogie 17:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Palmiro, Lee, I still want your answer to this: where would you guys have put non-Islamist terrorism that was justified by Islam, had your name been chosen for the page?--Urthogie 17:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

My entire point was that there was no such terrorism mentioned on the page at the time. Where is it now? Palmiro | Talk 17:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll add it this weekend possibly. I'm sure that wasnt your entire point, right?--Urthogie 17:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I seem to recall saying that this article was quite obviously about "terrorism" by Islamist organizations. If it had really been about "islamic terrorism", whatever that might be, and nobody has as far as I can see defined what it might be adequately (in my personal and obstinate view), I wouldn;t have been objecting in the first place. Palmiro | Talk 18:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

What would you call terrorism(such as burning of churches) that does not aim to create Sharia law, but results from revenge or hatred, and justified by Islam?--Urthogie 18:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "justified by Islam". Anyway, mob violence is not the same as terrorism. Also, as far as I know, most of the sectarian attacks against Shia, Christian and Sunni targets in Iraq lately have been ascribed to Islamist organizations. I believe that the same is true in Aceh, for example. Palmiro | Talk 18:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Urthogie, your question is circular and deceptive. "Non-Islamist terrorism that was justified by Islam" presupposes that everything has to be defined in relation to Islam. Behind this Islamist/Islamic terrorism are many and diverse political struggles. In each case there are happen to be incidents of terrorism that result from one or more of the actors. It's true that these terrorists do try to justify their actions in terms of their religion (as people have done throughout history) but this attempt by WP editors to label the whole thing as "Islamic" smacks of western bias. In other words, rather than treat Palestine, Chechnya, Iraq etc. as political struggles that have spawned terrorism, we take the lazy way out by squeezing everything into the same box and slapping an "Islamic terrorism" label on the side as if that explains everything. That's why I liked the "Islam and Terrorism" article because I think that examing attitudes towards terrorism among Muslims is a legitimate topic. Terrorism is a legitimate topic. Sectarian violence is a topic. "Islamic sectarian violence" would be a faux topic dreamed up to serve the predilictions of the editors. --Lee Hunter 18:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, example: terrorism against a newspaper for printing something that portrayed muslims in a bad way, by someone who doesn't want sharia law. Would that be Islamist terrorism, or Islamic terrorism?--Urthogie 19:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with simply calling it "terrorism" or perhaps "religious terrorism". I think this fixation on trying to associate Islam with terrorism, is just a reflection of the current obsessions and paranoia of western society. --Lee Hunter 19:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion on fixations of society has nothing to do with the fact that its encyclopedic. When there's a wealth of information on a notable topic, you're supposed to split the article and summarize it in the main one(religious terrorism). By the way, it must be asked, do you think there is there a fixation on state terrorism? on christian terrorism?--Urthogie 19:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, split a larger article but that begs the question of where you make the split. Why not split it geographically like we do for virtually every other topic? Terrorism in the the Middle East (or Terrorism in Iraq etc.) and so on? The decision to split things by religion reflects the systemic bias (I would call it lazy thinking) of the editors. --Lee Hunter 20:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Good point. How about we make it Religious terrorism in the Arab-Israeli conflict?--Urthogie 20:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

We categorize Art, Literature, History, Science etc. by religion. Why not terrorism? It's not lazy thinking--it's an obvious means of qualifying this. Poor Muslim kills his neighbour for bread. Not a religious murder. Poor Muslim kills village priest because of perceived Qu'ran desecration. Is a religious murder. If such killings are carried out be an organized group, we call it Islamic extremist terrorism. Where the problem at? As for the never-ending red herring of "Western bias", both "Islamism" and "Islamic fundamentalism" are Western coinages, so I don't know how the present title is somehow more biased. Marskell 10:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the current title is a bit unwieldy, but it is NPOV. Lee, Palmiro, I'm wondering what you think of Mars' reply to your concern over bias.--Urthogie 11:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem, once again, is that this article is primarily talking about terrorism that has arisen from political and terroritorial struggles. Religion is simply the flag that the terrorists have draped themselves in. Sure, they will happily tell you that they do what they do because "it is the will of Allah" and if they die they'll go to heaven etc etc. But just because they are talking about how God is on their side, does not, in itself, make it a religious conflict. It doesn't change the fact that they are actually engaged in a political and territorial struggle. Calling it "Islamic" just glosses over the whole messy reality of what is happening on the ground and gives it a convenient handle. --Lee Hunter 14:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the territorial conflict named above deserves to be highlighted to avoid analytical bias, but there is a lot of recent scholarship on religion and violence and religion and terrorism. I do not think this is an either/or situation. Perhaps a page on Religion and violence could have satellite pages on Violence and (pick a religion), and if it grew then Terrorism and (pick a religion). But I think there are problems with starting a title with the name of a religion and then using words like terrorism or violence. It is bound to be a magnet for confrontation. And the term "extremist" is rapidly being junked by social scientists as a meaningless perjorative label. This is especially true among sociologists who study movements.--Cberlet 14:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Extermist is not completely junked yet, and terrorism(despite its contentious use) is a word with a meaning(albeit many meanings, apparently) To Lee: if religion is part of the motivation and justification, doesn't it deserve an article, just as territoriality and political analysis do as well? For example, Osama Bin Laden. Islam is his main justification. His perverse understanding of Islam leads him to conduct terror.--Urthogie 15:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Bin Laden is a great example of someone who has framed his movement in religious terms, but if you look at his goals, they are again political and territorial. Changes of government in Saudi Arabia, Egypt etc. the Palestinians returned to their homeland, Jerusalem regained, Kashmir, the Americans out of the Gulf and Iraq. Yeah, there's a whole lot of religion intertwined with this, but the rhetoric about killing Jews and Christians would have no traction if it wasn't very much grounded in these post-colonial regional conflicts. --Lee Hunter 17:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Then why is it that terrorists are trained at schools of religious teaching?--Urthogie 18:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the point of your question. What difference does it make? Religion is obviously an enabler of the conflicts and the conflict is framed in religious terms so people are recruited and trained at mosques, madrassas and wherever but to make something of that is to confuse how a conflict is fought with what it's about. World War II was less a war against totalitarianism than it was against Axis of Evil 1.0. It was a geopolitical conflict. Fascism and Nazism were just the ideologies employed by one side. Primarily it was a struggle between nations for territory, resources and influence. --Lee Hunter 19:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it valuable to examine the way ideology can enable violence?--Urthogie 19:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Although I'm afraid it's the kind of article that Wikipedia is genetically incapable of doing well. --Lee Hunter 03:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Well what's wrong with the article current attempts to do that?--Urthogie 11:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Does it really attempt to examine the way ideology can enable violence or does it just provide a meandering dog's breakfast of random bits of information (each factoid given equal importance)? As much as I love WP, this article is a poster child for the encyclopedia's natural weaknesses. A good article on religion and violence could only be written by one person, someone who has a deep knowledge of the subject, and who is able to marshall the information in a way that gives some perspective, perhaps even a point of view. I'm not optimistic that an ever-changing gaggle of lightly-informed and disputative dabblers (like myself for example) could do any justice to the subject. --Lee Hunter 13:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll put the expert template it on it as a temporary request for an expert.--Urthogie 14:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I like the suggestion of the title "political violence by Islamic militants" as the alternative name for this page and others dealing with religeous terrorism Fyntan 11:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Link to Wahhabism

A very important aspect of the Islamic terrorism is missing. It is well established that Al-Quaeda has Wahhabi roots and it is the Wahhabi Islam which preaches violent means for the establishment of its ideas. Almost all other sects denounce terrorism. Even if the title of the article couldn't be changed to Wahhabi extremist terrorism, it would be more informative if we add a section about wahhabi idealogy and its terrorist consequences.

The ideology section in general needs a thorough going-over. I don't think we need anything as reductive of as "Wahhabi Islam preaches violent means for the establishment of its ideas" but some link and description could work. Marskell 09:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, its a bad idea to limit the possible content with such a name, but it'd be great to add some stuff about Wahhabism(spelling?) to the ideology section.--Urthogie 10:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

"Almost all other sects denounce terrorism." - You've got to be joking, right?

I am working on Saudi Arabia currently and I can comment only that Wahabi preachers very rarely preach violence. The very large part of the ulama condemns all forms of terrorism, and so do all major preachers opposed to the ulama, including Mohammed Al-Masari and Salman al-Awda. Wahabism as such can in no way be said to be encouraging terrorism or violence - wahabism is extremely conservative in social terms but this does not imply anything in terms of extremism. All terrorists who committed bombings inside Saudi Arabia have been pursecuted (and hanged) by the state, and condemned by the senior ulama, as have been the terrorist attacks of 9-11. The Saudi government has attempted several times in the 1990s to kill Osama Bin Laden, which was solely foiled by Bin Laden being helped by the governments of Sudan and Afghnaistan. It is really easy to condemn a complete doctrine, without any evidence and sufficient research.

By the way, terrorism is a marginal phenomenon in Islam; A small minority, even if this minority has had a large impact in the last years, is radical and not representative for the large majority. It is unfair, unacademic, and polemic to comment in the way some participants in the discussion do.

Regards, --Arabist 16:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

funny thing for all the editors of this page

"terrorism...how would I define terrorism....violence by a group without an air force" quote from Gary Brecher, the war nerd. --Urthogie 15:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

They can always aquire an air force Mohammed al-Khawal 07:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

That's sort of missing the quote's point (assuming there is one). Terrorism vs. military is really an issue of sovereignty. The current model of sovereignty is based upon territorial "integrity", i.e. the monopolization of violence over an area that is sufficient to be recognized (irrespective of diplomacy). In fact, the current scheme created incentive for terrorism as we know it, because the equation of land = power was stretched way, way too far in the 19th and 20th centuries. Various attempts to institutionalize it, such as the 1890's colony negotiations between European powers, the League of Nations Mandate System, the U.N. Trusteeship, etc. have failed. Basically, the state model has limits, whether they be economic, political, or social. We are currently at the social level (e.g. globalization), ushered in by WWII, itself a product of social-based state-expansion (look at Nazi ideology; people invested their lives in that system).

Terrorism, in this way, is simply competition for the monopoly of violence. It generally springs up after a failure of state-expansion, almost always bringing with it a new concept of state-expansion (e.g. political Islam). It tends to mimick other state tactics, like propoganda and claims of legitimacy, for the same reason. It is a challenge to sovereignty or a contesting claim to it, though the latter is often considered only a legal note and therefore usually requires a legal system of some sort. The ironic thing is that states are the only actors who can currently legitimize a definition of terrorism, but they are the last agents willing to acknowledge this because it gives terrorism a level of legitimacy in the umbrella of international law, inching it closer to that vague, sacred concept of self-determination (the reason the U.N. has so many problems can be directly related to the current sovereignty model). --Vector4F 14:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The quotes point was to make the editors here laugh.--Urthogie 15:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

No, terrorism it the expressed intent to cause fear and terror for the hope of making political, social or religious change in a society. The KKK was a terrorist group (I say was because it has no power any more). The FARC and ETA are terrorist groups. When 19 men hijacked airliners and flew them into buildings, that is terrorism. When a group kidnaps random people and beheads them, that is terrorism. To try and skirt around this simply because you don't like policy is silly...people who rob a bank are bank robbers, not freedom fighters.Culmo80 20:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)culmo80

The argument that "terrorism" can be differentiated as a military tactic by the emotion it supposedly evokes or by the intent of perpetrators consistently fails, but is consistently advanced primarily by certain Western political factions and by their adherents in client states. A bombing campaign dubbed "shock and awe" is expresly intended to evoke the emotion of terror. Aerial bombardment, insurgent campaigns and military attacks against civilian targets are all perpetrated by Western states in efforts to affect the social or political balance of so-called enemy states, but are never called terrorism by the perptrators. Pervasive editing by agents or employees of the United States government (including as administrators who use administrative access to control content of articles) prevents description of sectrarian or poltical violence in neutral terms in this supposedly open database. Skantada 06:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge to islamic terrorism

Islamic terrorism redirected here. "Islamic extremist terrorism" is a pleonasm. Tazmaniacs 02:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Good luck with succeeding though.--Urthogie 08:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This needs to be discussed again. Please do not revert the message flag.--Cberlet 13:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Why? Can we not just read the archives? --Lee Hunter 14:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Reverted; the merge was to an article which does not exist (ie. a redirect) and therefore confusing to our readers. If you are suggesting renaming this article to Islamic terrorism, please see lengthy discussion leading to previous renaming in the talk archives.  JEREMY 14:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not a merge request, it's a move request. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

He's allowed to suggest a page move, regardless of the archives.--Urthogie 14:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Cmon you can't ever find a muslim apologist willing to call a spade a spade. 128.84.178.81 02:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I visited this "Islamic extremist terrorism" page by following the link from the "Christian terrorism" page. But upon seeing the page's title, i immediately found it disturbing how much of a double standard we have here before us. The title "Islamic extremist terrorism" does nothing to indicate that the terrorism stems from Islamic religious sources the way "Christian terrorism" does. I would suggest that the two pages objectively mirror each other as much as possible so as not to imply a tilt in either the left or right political directions. This would also increase the likelyhood that political forums will quote and/or link these two pages together because the information will as more honest and nonpartial. So in my opinion, the page should be titled "Islamic terrorism", and page's content and structure should be somewhat similar to the "Christian terrorism" page.

Feel free to help us improve this page, but please note that the content of other articles matching this is not the way we approach things-- the goal is to individually reach neutrality on each article, one at a time.--Urthogie 15:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I cant help thinking that the way to neutrality on this topic will be to treat all the religions the same; in terms of basic format, whether the page about the religion contains a link to it's terrorists (Christianity doesn't, Islam does) or not poses a big question about neutrality in itself. I understand that a precedent of writing one page in consideration of another could be problematic for the majority of WP pages, but it is hard for me to see how else this issue can appear to be fairly dealt with Fyntan 11:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

weasel words

To whoever put up the weasel words template, could you explain your rationale? Thanks, --Urthogie 11:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, no hit and run tags please. Obviously this is far from perfect but it's no more weasely than any run-of-the-mill of the page. Marskell 11:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I think its quite reasonable. The wikipedia community seems quite uncomfortable with the correlation between faithful muslims and terrorism. A simple baysian analysis says that given a suicide bombing, the probability that a muslim did it is very close to 1. Mohammed al-Khawal 15:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

sentance I edited

"Most often people simply refer to such activity as "terrorism" without qualifying it, and there is much debate about whether commentary on the subject unfairly caricatures Muslims, and Arab Muslims in particular."

That sentance just doesn't make sense to me. The first clause seems to deal with semantics-- what its called. The second clause seems to discuss the issue of bias in the coverage of Islamic terrorism. The second clause comes like a nonsequitor, despite being part of the same sentance and being preceeded with "and."--Urthogie 15:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The intent was to point out that if you don't qualify it you wind up reductively targetting one group with the label (i.e., you have Basque and Irish terrorism, but terrorism as such = Arab). Marskell 15:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see a single source complaining about "terrorism" automatically referring to muslim/arab terrorism. It seems like a not so obvious statement. I'll {{fact}} it.--Urthogie 16:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

My goodness Urth. The sentence strikes me as one of the most obvious on this page. You may have read about a certain cartoon issue recently. See also: [25] [26] [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40367] [27] [28] [29] [30] Marskell 16:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

All that proves is that the commentary may be biased-- it doesn't prove anything about how that bias relates to the issue of semantics.--Urthogie 16:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

If you'd like to split the sentence in two, do so. But "there is debate about whether this caricatures Arabs and Muslims" really doesn't need a source. It's a plain fact that there's debate around this issue. Marskell 16:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Reviewing it again, I see that its a complete non-sequitor of a sentance. The paragraph is about what the terrorism is called, not opinions on its coverage. The sentance should stay, but belongs in a paragraph that actually deals with that subject.--Urthogie 18:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

As you like. "A complete non-sequitor" seems a little harsh. "Islamic terrorism is wrong because I like ducks" is a complete non-sequitor. This sentence may be out of place in a paragraph dealing with semantics, but it isn't totally out to lunch. Marskell 21:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Guess you're right. I'm becoming extremely impatient and deletionist. Need to chill with this stuff.--Urthogie 21:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I would say this: relative to the page in general, the intro is fairly tight. Hits the points that are obvious and isn't POV (says me, anyhow). Concern over this sentence is something of an at the margins debate. Sure, the sentence might flow better if we arranged things a little differently, but it does follow in the general sense. I think by and large we do well in saying both this topic is obvious and serious, without saying "let's impune the wider Muslim world" in the intro. The larger issues: Can we make a good ideology section for this? Can we describe the history properly? I would like to see this happen without getting bogged down in edit wars over the intro. Marskell 21:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

As far as the sentance being out of place, you're right its not an NPOV issue, but an organization issue. Sorry I haven't been very involved in this article. I'm very ADHD about my edits, so I hyperfocus on getting one article featured, while just making minor edits to the others(this is high on my list, though!) Peace, --Urthogie 22:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

If its terrorism done by faithful muslims, for claimed Islamic reasons, then it is Islamic terrorism. The only reason that Islamic terrorism is associated with arabs is that most arabs are muslim. Mohammed al-Khawal 15:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

This article should be deleted

It shows that religion is a proxy for terrorism.Robin Hood 1212 13:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it wrong?

Nope, all religions eventually are.

NPOV

Muslims did not do the 9/11 attacks, and claiming they did is to present the American view as factual. --Striver 09:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Um, in the sense that not all 1.2 billion participated, Muslims did not "do" 9/11. Insofar as the nineteen hijackers were in fact Muslims, then Muslisms did. Marskell 09:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh please, do you want to present conspiracy theories. Muslims did commit terrorism on 9/11, they hijacked four planes and killed thousands of people. How could you not believe Muslims killed themselves when you see them blowing themselves up everyday? Osama Bin Laden said he planned the attacks, there is video of them at the airport, there is audio tape of them hijacking United 93. What more do you need? I don't know where you live or what news you get but you are sadly misinformed and it's offensive. (Anonymous User) May 23, 2006

Dear Anonymous User I find your contribution both comical and unbecoming. Just because there are some suicide bombings in a land a couple of 1000s miles of US , how could we reach to conclusion that muslims have done it. In that case we can also hold Japanese resposible for the 9/11 since they were the ones who started this tradition of suicide attacks on enemies (and perhaps Japanese casualities as a result of Hara Kari out number the suicide attacks occured in Israel to this date). Using video/audio evidence to proclaim some one as guilty for a mass murder ......when such evidences arent given any weitage even in the most trivial courts of law any where in the world even for the smallest crimes....then how can we use it to convict some one for such horrific crimes...... perhaps you have gone to a different law school Hussain 14:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

HussainAbbas your answer is why the clash of civilisations will end in genocide(and thats not a good thing!).Hypnosadist 15:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, you gotta know that the conspiracy theorists would show up eventually. I mean if you believe that 9/11 was an inside job or that Israel did it then you have to believe that the dozens of major terrorist attacks prior to 9/11 were also inside jobs or Israeli operations. Please use Occums Razor when thinking about such things...Culmo80 20:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)culmo80

If "Islamic Terrorism" can be tolerated then why not White Christian Terrorism. Is wikipedia only for the white folks?

If "Islamic Terrorism" can be tolerated then why not White Christian Terrorism. Is wikipedia only for the white folks? -- AmandaParker

Who cares? MOD 13:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, we have a policy in this regard: Wikipedia:Only white people may edit Marskell 20:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

There already is a Christian terrorism page, feel free to join us in contributing there.--TVPR 23:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

No worries. By the way, who says one of them is being tolerated? Just please relax and take it easy instead of spamming articles' talk pages. -- Szvest 23:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

No offense, but last time I checked Islam isn't a race. There are a lot of blacks, whites, and other races that are muslims. Also, you made a logical fallacy in that your criticism would only make sense if this page were called Arab extremist terrorism. Peace, --Urthogie 08:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Amanda but your silly

Latest page move

I reverted Irishpunktom's move of this page to Islamic extremist violence. There is no consensus for such a move, and it's likely to be a contentious issue. I suggest it would be better to take it to requested moves if anyone wants a change. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer this article called plainly "Islamic terrorism". "Islamic extremist terrorism" sounds somewhat strange, as if there were some "Islamic moderate terrorism". Pecher ^Talk 19:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the most accurate one is Islamist terrorism. Cheers -- Szvest 20:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

I've been staying out of this one -- no time -- but I'll second Szvest's suggestion of Islamist terrorism. This makes it clear that it is not all Islam involved, only the Islamist interpretation of Islam. There are many "extreme" versions of Islam (in fact, every Islamic tradition regards other traditions as extreme, or deviant) and not all of them are Islamist. Islamist seems to be the term that is emerging as the frontrunner for the English word that best describes the Muslim Brotherhood/Qutbi/violent Salafi strand of political thought. Zora 03:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Concur with Szvest and Zora.Timothy Usher 08:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Christian terrorism is called just that "Christian terrorism" without any circumventing adjective, like "Christianist". Islamic terrorism is terrorism perpetrated in the name of Islam, not in the name of Islamism. Pecher ^Talk 08:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

At present, the Christian terrorism article is a hodgepodge of totally independent movements that are united only by claiming to act in the name of Christianity. The article was set up by an anon who who started it as a parallel to Islamic terrorism (which existed them). He/she also linked to Religious Terrorism and Terrorism.

However, I think Islamism has more coherence than that. It is not just any violence done in the name of Islam; it is a tradition starting with the Muslim Brotherhood and Qutb. Also Maududi and Shariati -- we really ought to mention them too. But all those thinkers were reading each other, influencing each other. Zora 08:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Introducing the word "Islamism" into the title means applying rather restrictive criteria for inclusion of acts of terror into this article. By this logic, acts of terror perpetrated by individuals in the name of Islam do not fit here unless these individuals are part of an organized movement, like Hamas. In which article will isolated acts of terror fit then? Pecher ^Talk 09:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Does WP really need articles that survey the acts of isolated loons who claim to be killing in the name of whatever? If someone blows up a building in support of Transcendentalism (a defunct New England intellectual movement), do we need a Transcendentalist terrorism article? Maybe we just need an article about insert name of loon.

If you say that there's something particularily Islamic (or Christian or Buddhist or Jewish) about terrorism, such that it deserves its own article, aren't you making the argument that the religion in question is inherently violent? That also is a current, trendy, and usually anti-Islamic current of opinion. Zora 13:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Zora, we really need articles that describe terrorist acts commited in the name of Islam. It's up to the reader to decide whether Islam is inherently violent or not; we cannot suppress certain material on the grounds that a reader may conclude based on it that Islam is a violent religion. Pecher ^Talk 16:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree w/ Pecher on this. However, i'd rather talk about Islamist extremist terrorism (in Italics) instead of a straight one. I dunno about the technicalities though! -- Szvest 17:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

Zora, I disagree. Two things. First, violent acts perpetrated under the auspices of Islam contribute (albeit negatively) to the whole of Islam in some way. Regardless of how Muslims respond to these acts, they are petrated under the guise of Islam. Second, these acts contribute to the view which non-Muslims take to Islam, hence the adjective Islamic. In both cases, the title facilitates both Muslim and non-Muslim perspectives. It does not, admittedly, protect the reader from his/her own ignorance. NPOV descriptions can sometimes be a bit blunt.

Also, I would disagree with the use of "Islamist" in the title here. Basically, this label places more burden on the editors and reader with little benefit. "Islamism" (label/id-wise) was created as an attempt by myriad Western intellectuals to objectify groups, individuals, etc. who espouse poignant political interpretations of Islam (e.g. the contemporary debate on political Islam is worked out under this and other labels). When you say "Islamism" one would presume you are speaking of an interaction between ideas and social structures (i.e. abstract things really). The term has little usefulness here because this article is focused on violent actions and the direct who/what/why. "Islamism" is not an explanation of or impetus for terrorism - it is really a metatheory of *some* of those factors which contribute to terrorism. Neither does "Islamism" answer the question "what kind of terrorism?" - in fact, it makes this question harder to answer! Lastly, a singular "Islamism" brings a lot of demands upon the editors/readers.

I hope that makes sense. Regardless, since the debate on precisely what Islamism is still rages, it is best to state things without jargon. I hardly see the Western press get their labels right as it is. -Vector4F 01:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

- - "aren't you making the argument that the religion in question is inherently violent?" - Yes, that's exactly the point. You might as well be arguing, "The Christians started the Crusades" and "The Nazis started the Holocaust."

name

"Islamic extremist terrorism" gets only 929 google hits (mostly to wkipedia) while "Islamic terrorism" is a much more common name geting 1.5 M hits. Zeq 10:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Islamic Terrorist attacks on Hindus, Hindu Holy places and Hindu Temples

By selectively reverting attacks by Islamic Terroists on Hindu Holy places, Hindu temples and selective killing of Hindus in Indian state of Kashmir, What does User:Anonymous editor want to proove? Were they not muslims? Are attacks like these not Terrorism? Is selective killing of Hindus not based on religion? How attacks like these are different from other examples of attack in that article? - Holy Ganga ^talk 11:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Please dont pissoff yourself. When some Muslim will tell that Hindus not only as individuals but as a provincial Government i.e. Provincial Chief Minister Nirinder Moodi with his all regime has supported the Rapings + Killings + Burning of the muslims alive (by Hindus), then you people immediately go deny that so shamelessly. While here you come with your hipociricy again, claiming the few deaths of Hindus in Kashmir while you ignore 100,000 Kashmiris being killed. Please Note here that I did not deny the killing of some Hindus in Kashmir, it would be true, but I right here expect that you will totally deny the killing and raping of 5,000 Muslims in Indian Gujrat and killing of 100,000 Muslims by Hindu army in Kashmir.

"People Just See what they wanna see"

If you people are so secular, then can you name a single Muslim General in your Army?

Did you speak a single word of objection when the following is happening:

94.9% of Muslims in India are living below the line of poverty.
60.2 per cent of Muslims do not have any land in rural areas. National average: 43% 
Just 2.1 per cent of Muslim farmers have tractors. With 15,25,000 tractors, India ranks No.4 after US, Japan and Italy 
A mere 1 per cent of Muslims own water handpumps at their homes and 99% dont.
On the educational front, the picture is equally dismal: 54.6 per cent Muslims in 
villages and 60 per cent in urban areas have never attended schools. 
National average: 40.8 per cent in rural areas and 19.9 per cent in urban areas. 
Only 0.8 per cent of Muslims in rural areas are graduates.

And now, Before you catch fire, let me tell you that these facts are not my claims but This is the disturbing conclusion emerging from the initial findings of the Indian Prime Minister’s High Level Committee, headed by Justice (retd) Rajinder Sachar (A Hindu).[31]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by VirtualEye (talk • contribs) 13:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Hi. Please read the fourth paragraph

Islamic extremist violence is not synonymous with all terrorist activities committed by Muslims. Nationalist, separatist, and occasionally Marxist-Leninist organizations in the Muslim world often derive inspiration from secular ideologies. These are not well described as either Islamic extremist or Islamist.

So the case of Kashmiri separatists fighting to separate Indian controlled kashmir from India does not mean it's Islamic extremist terrorism just because they are mostly Muslim. The other attacks are not proven to be linked to Muslim groups or sourced. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 15:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Please read this from the article: "The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank, every major suicide-terrorist campaign — over 95 percent of all the incidents — has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw." [32]

World has declared major terrorist orginazations of Kashmir as Terrorist and not freedom fighters and their attacks as acts of Terrorism. . Here, we are concerned with Terrorist attacks. How can you justify that Terrorist attack on Hindu holy city, hindu temples and Hindus is not an act of Terrorism? How can selective killing of hindus is not an attack of terrorism? How can you distinguish between these attacks and other examples of attack here? Do you want to hide all terrorist attacks on Indians and Hindus under this so called "freedon fighters"? All three examples of attacks are proven. Instead of deleating them selectively, you should ask for citations. No example here is with citation but you selectively removed Terrorist attacks on Hindus , Hindu Holy city and Hindu temples. Regards - Holy Ganga ^talk

13:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Where the attacks desgined to initate a global caliphate? - If so, prove it, if not, it does not belong here.--Irishpunktom\^talk 23:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Attack on Hindu holy city, attack on famous Hindu temples and selective killing of minority Hindus in a muslim majority locality are some enough reasons to proove that these are not just Terrorist attacks by Muslims against Indians but Islamic extremist terrorism against India and Hinduism. How can you differentiate between these attacks and other examples of attacks here? If you can, first of all try to answer questions raised above. If they are not Islamic terrorist attacks then Proove your point logically.- Holy Ganga ^talk 06:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This edit, (rm Indian POV, pls give verifiable international links), removed

24 September 2002 - Machine Gun attack on Hindu temple in Ahmedabad, India. 31 dead, 86 injured.[33][34]

I don't understand how exactly this constitutes Indian POV, or what the problem with the links is. I've restored the material. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

AHEM

All the arguments above have been completely idiotic. Including those of Holy Ganga. Firstly- All terrorism, including islamic, has been for political aims. Hezollah for Lebanese independance be destroying Israel, Hamas the same for Palestine.

AlQaeda is simply trying to bring together all elements of islamic terrorism.

Lashkar and Jaish focus their attacks on India, so the west carefully ignored these, calling them freedom fighters. The fact is that although Kashmiris want freedom, they do not want to fight the Indian State, they REALLY do not want to join Pakistan, which is the only option terrorists offer.

Other than that, the want to join Pakistan simply because they cannot stand the idea of a nation in which Muslims do not constitute a majority, and this does not fulfill their Wahabbi/Deobandi agenda.

Now that Indian Terrorist organizations have finally cropped up powerful bonds with Al Qaeda and Hezbollah, I do not think that the west has any excuse to hide behind in order to justify the killing of innocents- whether selectively Hindu or indiscriminate. The Bombay train blasts, by probability, must have killed a Muslim for every 10 Hindus- The Malegaon blasts, if proven to be LeT's doing and not the Bajrang Dal's, killed more muslims than Hindus.

Look at the paragraphs above, You Seem to be the Biggest IDIOT here, Did you sign with your name? how do I identify you?

I presented the figures from India's own reputed news source. This world has become like 'you have stick, you rule', yet those Muslims killed hindus when India is ruling there by 700,000 troops? Shame on such a gay army. There is one Indian army troop per 7 Kashimiris. At first, Kishmiris surely wanted to join Pakistan, but then India tortured them so brutally that they have to say, we dont want any India Pakistan conflict, just leave us on our fate. But even then those bullshits dont let them live. At the last Muslims are the most severely discriminated and considered as inhuman creatures according to Indian Media report itself.

There are many bulshit vidoes blaming Pakistan and kashmiri Muslims, but all of them are compiled by Hindus. Yet I present here the video made by English reporters (not any Muslims or Pakistanis which you blame )see for yourself and believe for yourself. Terrorism of Indian Army VirtualEye 12:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

9/11 Image

Anonymous editor, please stop trying to bury the image of 9/11 attacks somewhere in the middle of the article. Pecher ^Talk 11:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The September 11, 2001 Attacks were done in the name of Islam by the terrorist group Al Qaida. I believe they are an example of Islamic extremist terrorism. Why can't we include a picture of the attack in this article?--Sefringle 02:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

September 11, 2001 Attacks picture must be part of this article as it is the most notable example of Islamic extremist terrorism. Hypnosadist 18:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Categorizing

Regarding the recent revert wars, a couple of thoughts:

To Anon, a terrorist group can be both separatist and religious (see The troubles). I wrote the "Nationalist, separatist, and occasionally Marxist-Leninist organizations..." line but it wasn't meant as a didactic division ("if it's separatist, it's out"). Attacks within Kashmir may be "tactical" and not necessarily appropriate to this page but, for instance, the attack at Varanasi is I think fairly unequivocally a sectarian terrorist act.
That said: lists of "bad things" are notoriously unstable and likely to cause revert wars on just about any article. I'm having that confirmed to me again and again as I move about this place. One solution would be to reduce, remove, or turn the list to prose. Marskell 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Nationalism vs Fundamentalism

There seems to be some confusion about revolutionaries and mujahids. For instance, Kashmiri nationalists include Hindus as well. I have removed some of the baseless POV. Will do more soon. Anwar 21:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you want to do, give reliable sources to proove your point. No major edits are acceptable without discussions. - Holy Ganga ^talk 21:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You should be the one who gives sources to the rest of us for including conspiracy theories. Anwar 21:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

What conspiracy theories, specifically? How does Kashmiri nationalism relate to whether those groups are [also] IET groups? El_C 21:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

HG refuses to recognise the difference between ideology-driven fundamentalism (which is the gist of this article) and plain old nationalist struggles. See his conspiracy theories. HG believes LET and JEM aim to destroy India and annihilate Hinduism. Plus there are no links to support this theory. Infact, I suspect it is based on the popular stereotype in India that all bomb blasts are planned in Pakistan. HG refuses to see Kashmiri as an entity separate from Pakistani. Also, Sri Lanka is a Buddhist nation pitted against Hindu terrorists like the recently EU-banned LTTE. Anwar 21:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

A factual correction: the LTTE is not a Hindu organisation. It includes a good number of Christians in high positions - for instance, a certain Anton Balasingham. Christians have been closely associated with Tamil nationalism in Sri Lanka - SJV Chelvanayakam, its founding father, was Christian. -- Arvind 23:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

That's quite true. But India labels and bans LTTE as a terrorist outfit even though they have a standing army, navy and airforce manning 75% of the Sri Lankan coast. Anwar 02:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Both of those are banned by US ,UN, India, UK and even Pakistan because they are IET. [35] [36]. You may have asked for citations (thats why wikipedia invented this function) or took part in discussions but here again from whole article (which is lacking citations) you selectively picked and reverted without discussions.- Holy Ganga ^talk 22:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The point I want to advance is for this article to remain consistent with what is being said on the Lashkar-e-Toiba —tagged for cleanup for a year now(!)— and the Jaish-e-Mohammed entries. El_C 22:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Both of those articles on LET and JEM are sham. No independent sources were provided. Also, in such delicate matters, its better to ignore claims of the parties involved lest we be flooded with contradictory news accounts. For instance in the case of Kashmir, all Indian sources are irrelevant as they are the one who brand nationalists as fundamentalists. There is a conflict of interest. Only independent international sources like the websites of UN, EU, etc. should be considered. That's why I removed Times of India link. Remember, the victim cannot be the witness for the same crime. Anwar 22:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, Just because Anwar thinks that one of the most reputed and high circulated newspaper "Times of India" is biased, so he has every right to remove and delete whole material. What is the use of talk pages? Why are they here? Did you discussed that matter? How many more internatonal citations you need? [37]. That was the site of police investigation. Nobody have problem with links of American press calling Osama as Terrorist but you have problem with Indin press calling those demonic unwanted terrorists of India as terrorists. - Holy Ganga ^talk 22:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Because, Now citaions are avaliable and i will add more if required, so these two major IET groups should be readded. - Holy Ganga ^talk 22:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You are asking for citations but in your haste you even riverted information which was with citation [24 September]] 2002 - Machine Gun attack on Hindu temple in Ahmedabad, India. 31 dead, 86 injured. [38] and this once again prooved like a previous article that you are selectively attacking and riverting.- Holy Ganga ^talk 22:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think now anyone should have any objections. Added 7 refs to support each and every claim. Will try to improve further with more points and refs. Regards, - Holy Ganga ^talk 12:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda "accused"?

"Al-Qaeda . . . is accused of committing terrorism in a number of countries in Africa, the Middle East, Europe. and Indonesia. It is also accused of orchestrating the September 11, 2001 attacks against the United States."

Haven't they claimed responsibility for some attacks? I'd think that wether or not you want to argue over if they actually had a role in 9/11 is irrelevent to the fact that they should have at some point taken credit for doing something. Didn't they unequivically say that they had a hand in blowing up US embassies in Africa? "Accused" should be changed to something along the lines of "claimed responsibility for".

Say "responsible", it's been proven Al-Qaeda did the attacks. So stop the conspiracy bs. (Anonymous User) 22 June 2006

The verses of the Qur'an

On other articles it had been established that the Quran is a primary source, open to very different interpretations by different scholars. Thus for an editor to select verses and attribute meanings to them relative to ongoing conflicts amounts to original research. For this reason, I'm removing the usage of the Quran unless other secondary sources can be used to support the content. A fact tag wouldn't do the job as the content implies Wikipedia's interpreting religious scripture. Finding secondary sources should be easy enough. His Excellency... 14:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I was surprised when I came across that huge bank of quotes and didnt know how to respond to it. I think your idea is a very good response. Without secondary sources that explain the way text is interpreted (and allowing room for alternative interpretations/argument) the quotes don't improve the article at allFyntan 06:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Yet when we add info from the terrorist's such as Mohammed Reza Taheriazar (see below) about the lines in the Quran as justifying mass murder they get deleted!Hypnosadist 20:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This is why people fail to understand what we're up against...the Quran IS the primary source of guidance for terrorists. The fact is that none of those quotes were ever abrogated and are continued to rally thousands to the call of Jihad every day.Culmo80 20:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)culmo80

Inappropriate reference to Marxism-Leninism

I am concerned with the following sentence: "Some terrorist activities committed by Muslims do not fall into the category of Islamic extremist terrorism: Nationalist, separatist, and occasionally Marxist-Leninist organizations in the Muslim world often derive inspiration from secular ideologies." Please provide me with a reference that justifies the inclusion of "Marxist-Leninist organizations." Prompt and unequivocal justification is necessary if that sentence is to remain the same. Firewall62 (talk) 10:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note: I corrected the aforementioned problem. Without the inclusion of a reliable source, it is simply absurd to attribute acts of terrorism to Marxist-Leninist organizations; the history of Marxism-Leninism is starkly characterized by a pronounced opposition to terrorism. Consider, e.g., Trotsky's "Why Marxists Oppose Individual Terrorism" (1909). Indeed, the use of terrorism in revolutionary endeavors is a point of conflict between Marxist-Leninists (who oppose it) and anarchists (who do not). Firewall62 (talk) 07:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all Trotsky fell from power and was only one voice. If you read "The World Was Going Our Way" by Mitrokhin and Andrew, you'll find that yes, Marxist-Leninist nations DID support terrorists, namely Middle Eastern groups that they could direct to attack Western interests. Don't forget that Carlos the Jackel received some amount of support from the Soviet Union. Islamic groups DID receiving backing from the USSR which was a Marxist-Leninist state, was it not?Culmo80 20:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)culmo80

The USSR ceased to be a Marxist-Leninist state quickly after the October revolution. Radical political groups are free to consider themselves whatever they want, but the fact of the matter is that the ideas of Marxism-Leninism are incompatible with acts of terrorism. Firewall62 (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Stupid title

The "extremist" ought to be removed from both Islamic extremist terrorism and Christian extremist terrorism. Yes, the terrorists are a small minority of any religion. But "extremist" simply doesn't communicate that fact successfully. Not does the article title need to communicate it, that is the articles job.

Infact, I don't think one can justify that claim that "all *individuals* who cary out or lead terrorist acts with a religious agenda are religious extremists", as the religious agenda is only part of the picture for any given individual. Racism, individual grievances, ignorance, etc. all play an important role both for the actors & the leaders (and the leaders can have even more complex & less religious motivations).

We are using slightly-incorrect weasel words in these two titles. 134.214.102.33 15:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Not really...you ever hear of a moderate terrorist? Radical and extremists do correctly identify most terrorists because when you use violence and such tactics that they use to further their agendas...that's rather extreme.Culmo80 20:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)culmo80

list of attacks very incomplete

We should probably include the 1983 attack on the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut that killed 241. Ya think? (unknown)

I agree here, the list ist very incomplete and US-focused and post-911 focused. I personally remember dozends of additional attacks in europe between 1970 and 2001:

Do you know that french subways where bombed at least a dozend times in the 90ths?

Or that the vienna airport was occupied by armed forces in the 80ths?

What about the kidnapping of the Achille_Lauro? The Terroism against french citizens around the algerian war in the 50ths?

The terrorism through the algerian civil war in the 90ths?

Terrorism Campaigns in India are still the most deadly known?

East Timor?

The Philipines?

Armenia?

Crass Spektakel 10:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

One of the huge problems with this article is that people want to add all sorts of wildly off-topic events just because some of the people involved happened to be ethnically Muslim or Arab. Achille Lauro involved the PLF (i.e. a secular group). Algeria was a war against colonialism etc. --Lee Hunter 14:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Rename

Lets rename this to Terrorism attributed to Muslims. This solves the issue of if it really is terrorism and if "Islam" is involved. --Striver 19:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is terrorism. Thers is no issue either about that fact or about the fact that most terrorist acts are caused by Islam. Cerebral Warrior 15:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree but these acts are done in the name of "Land recovery from fachist invaders". Media links it with Islam b/c it sells more . And obviously they cant say that all of this is happening b.c of their government's policies. I think Muslim Extremist terrorism will be better . Other wise we should have Judaic terrorism & Christianity terrorism too . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال} ^{^/c} 16:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah the victims deserved to be killed defence F.A.Y! Ok lets see if a few FACTS can set you straight (they won't but its really for the rest of the wikipedians out there) about how much the victims deserved to be killed. Of course attempting to talk about innocents in the west is out because there deaths are the governments fault in your mind. So lets go to Iraq, where over 10 barbers have been killed in the name of "Land recovery from fachist invaders", no wait i got that wrong they have been killed because (wait for it this crime is up there with pedophilia) they shave mens beards off! (ps this was reported by the BBC not LGF). Lets move to another country involved in islamic terrorisms war on us, Thailand, where "Land recovery from fachist invaders" takes the form of terrorists many from indonesia killing native buddist Thai's for the crime of Pig Farming or collecting rubber tree sap off the land has been theirs for THOUSANDS of years. This list goes on and on. I'll believe islam has nothing to do with terrorism when suicide bombers are no-longer video'd with a Koran in one hand and an assult-rifle in the other, but until then i'll just call it the religion of peace and everone else will laugh at that sick joke. Hypnosadist 16:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Ps as to Judaic terrorism & Christianity terrorism please create them as ibet there is anough notable cases for articles like Zionist political violence and pro-life groups already have pages on wikipedia. (My bet is you won't create these pages and 3 months from now you'll be back bitching and moaning that only islam has terrorism pages ascociated with it). Hypnosadist 16:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Dude lets go to Iraq, How many people were being killed there before the invasion . And how do you get the information about who is killing who . Buddhist thais...you mean thais arnt doing anything there. Beards, pigs... this is stupid . Beleve me , as soon as I create Judaic terrorism, & add a single verst from bible , a bunch of right wing zionists will delete the article calling it anti-semite . This has happened a gazillion times .There is a good reason why this article is named Zionist political violence , its supposed to imply that there is no such thing as masmurder in the name of Torah. I dont have time for this nonsense . Feel free to think whatever you want to . Weak minds are supposed to folow . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال} ^{^/c} 21:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Heres an article from the BBC about the beard related killings [39]. Hypnosadist 01:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This article should remain Islamic extremeist terrorismas thats what it is, as for Zionist political violence i think it should be called Zionist extremist terrorism. If a renaming comes up feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page and i'll happily argue for that.Hypnosadist 12:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The page name has been problematic from the start. It appears that there are few cites to the term outside of links back to this page. A better name would be "Islamic political violence."--Cberlet 18:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, so in the spirit of WP:Bold, I've renamed it. Armon

Every name has been problematic. This one has its imperfections but you'll find the rationale for it above and in the archives. Simply up and renaming this is probably not the best move.

Note, "Islamic political violence" suffers, as it would seem to exclude terrorism of a specifically religious nature. We've gone round this merry-go-round many times. Marskell 11:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

OK too bold -but I don't understand your point about "it would seem to exclude terrorism of a specifically religious nature." Isn't that obvious in Islamic? I think the problem with extremist and terrorism is that what's extreme, and what's terrorism, is subject to one's POV, whereas the fact that it's political violence in the "name of Islam" is indisputable. Seems like a better, more NPOV title for the subject. See Zionist political violence or Palestinian political violence as other examples. Armon 12:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

What about "religious violence in the 'name of Islam'"? Marskell 12:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

OK I think I see where we differ. I consider all violence of this type to have broadly political ends, even if the perps only use religious justifications. They may kill infidels for drawing cartoons, unveiling, drinking, whatever, but their ultimate goal is the hegemony of their belief system. Armon 13:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I.e., their "ultimate goal" is religious. Including "political" as an adjective in the title can be a straightjacket. Sorry if I'm being brief, but really, look at the last two archives.

FWIW, I consider "all violence of this type to have broadly political ends" to be true only insofar as Westerners extrapolate their notion of the "political" to every context they can. The Danish-Mohammed cartoon controversy was political, sure—the anger was directed at a nation-state, which had to "politically" respond. But pause and think: the outburst was a) inchoate b) secterian/religious. Attaching a political dimension to it is a post-hoc Western enterprise. There was no "end" involved, beyond "buy a Danish flag and burn it."

Of course, buying a Danish flag and burning it, isn't necessarily terrorism, which raises other questions. Should we have two pages to distinguish organized, political violence from semi-organized, religious violence? Where (to use an example from above) do church burnings in Pakistan fit? Where (lest it seem I'm only using Muslims as perpetrators) do the massacres of Muslims by Hindus in India fit? Not "terrorism", but surely "terroristic". Perhaps we do need different pages--but until we have them, "political" in the title limits this page. Marskell 22:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Qur'an Interpretations

I don't think this part is well-written. It just lists bunch of verses without giving references as to where and when were these verses quoted or used by extremists. I have removed these verses and I have conducted a search to find the verses and the interpretaions that the extremists really used. To make it a balanced section I included the interpretaions that moderate Muslim scholars have to counter these extremist interpretations. Any comments? Please feel free to discuss it with me. Marwan123 10:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

What's the point?

There is like 10 different articles on basically the same thing. And honestly, is it really fair to use terms like "Islamic terrorism", "Islamic fascism", "Islamic extremism", "Islamofascism", "Jihadists"? It's kind of ridiculous, by putting Islam there you put it on trial just because some idiots want to blow things and people up. Every other religion and race gets the luxury of it just being some whackos, but not Muslims. The argument that most Muslims are not terrorists but most terrorists are Muslim doesn't fit. If you are going to use one anti-Muslim epithet, atleast pick one and enough with all the nonsense. I could say something like most child molesters are middle age white men or most gangmembers are young black and Latino youths and then insinuate things from there.

That's because it's such a large problem nobody is sure how to identify it for online encyclopedias. Why doesn't the argument "not all Muslims are terrorists but.." fit? Is it not true? And you're comparing apples and oranges. There is one key factor that connects the terrorists who tried to blow up the WTC in 1993 with the ones who blew up the embassies in 1998 and the ones we are facing now...Islam. The only thing that connects child-molesters is their sick actions. And Islam isn't a "race", it's a faith.Culmo80 20:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)culmo80

Student newspapers are not reliable sources

Because student papers do not even remotely meet the requirements of of WP:RS I'm deleting the lengthy chunk of quotes from the Qu'ran. Just because someone wrote something somewhere doesn't make it a legitimate source for anything. This is WP policy and common sense. It also supposedly comes from a guy who drove his car into a crowd of students. Perhaps this belongs in his own article but not in a general article like this. --Lee Hunter 16:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually it meets the all the requirements for a provider of verifiable primary source info, the document is undisputed. This is a letter to the Daily tar heel to be published and the source is a pdf of the original document.Hypnosadist 17:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

This section is to long and probably only needs a few of the quran quotes but wholesale deletion is not appropriate as most jihadies arn't take alive so we don't get their POV.Hypnosadist 17:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually guys we need a more scientific approach to this section. We can't just go and copy and paste an opinion of somone who is biased against Islam and claim that this how the extremists interpret Quran. They sure have their interpretaions and Fatwas that justify their acts in their opinion and we need to address that not what Mohammed Reza Taheriazar said.

Osama Bin Laden has issued a whole fatwa with verses and interpretations and there is not single mention of that. Marwan123 21:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Marwan how is someone who attempts to murder people with a car in the name of islam, "somone who is biased against Islam"?Hypnosadist 21:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

A better question might be: how has this 23-year-old university student who grew up in the US and was into driving fast cars and smoking lots of pot and one day went crazy and tried to run over some people, how is it that this guy's letter to a student newspaper has been selected to explain the theological basis for Islamic terrorism? --Lee Hunter 21:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

This ones simple; he's a terrorist (just thankfully crap at it) and this his theological basis for his terrorism.Hypnosadist 22:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, we have the question of whether he is an actual terrorist or, as seems apparent from the WP article, just a drunken, stoned loser who had a hate on for Christians. Secondly, he was apparently not much of a Muslim. So we have a guy who wasn't really a terrorist, wasn't really much of a Muslim and we're quoting him at length as if his thoughts were somehow representative of Islamic terrorists. Staggering. --Lee Hunter 22:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

"drunken, stoned loser" really? you know the last time he drank or smoked pot? I think not! "he was apparently not much of a Muslim" really? You can judge him on that because of what knowledge of him and what understanding of islam? Just because he failed to kill people you say he wasn't really a terrorist, so how many people do you have to kill to be one? Whats staggering is the lenghts people will go to cover up facts!Hypnosadist 02:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Even if he killed people it doesn't make him a terrorist. He was an unstable individual who went on a rampage, much like a number of "Christians" did after 9/11, attacking people who looked like they might be Muslims. Were they "Christian terrorists"? Should we look to them for biblical quotes like "an eye for an eye"?--Lee Hunter 13:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

"unstable" ahhhh! so terroists are stable then?

"who went on a rampage, much like a number of "Christians" did after 9/11, attacking people who looked like they might be Muslims. Were they "Christian terrorists"? Should we look to them for biblical quotes like "an eye for an eye"?" If they claim they claim they did it in the name of Jesus and give quotes like "an eye for an eye" then they should be in Cristian extremist terrorism, YES! See how simple it is! If someone does an act of terrorism in the name of there religion they are a religious terrorist, simple!Hypnosadist 16:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Are terrorists stable? With a few exceptions, I would say probably yes. What we know of Taheriazar is that he was guy who was into heavy drinking, smoking lots of pot and driving too fast. Not the typical terrorist profile if you ask me. No connections to an organized terrorist group. Yes, he committed an act of violence, but acts of violence are not inherently acts of terrorism. --Lee Hunter 17:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

If you can live the current edit (your one)of the Mohammed Reza Taheriazar section i can.Hypnosadist 21:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Marwan heres some OBL quotes

25th sept 2001 [40]
19th jan 2006 [41]
16th dec 2004 [42]
29th oct 2004 [43]
7th may 2004 [44]
15th april 2004 [45]

that should do you for a start Marwan.Hypnosadist 03:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Osama bin Laden is not an established Islamic scholar, his quotes mean shit. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 21:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah the classic first line of defence against the facts, osama not a scholar!

We are quoting terrorists not scholars, whats your next proxie argument?

PS this is what always happens Marwan!Hypnosadist 22:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

What in the world are you talking about? I am not against presenting Osama quotes in this article. They must, however, be explained as to portray the fact that Osama is not a scholar, his words/fatwas have no impact on the Muslim community.. etc. etc. Hypno, please assume good faith. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 22:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

"his words/fatwas have no impact on the Muslim community" pull the other one it has bells on!Hypnosadist 22:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hypno, The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page, not these personal attacks. Before I continue, I must ask how your ridicule of my beliefs is relevant to discussing changes to this article. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 22:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I was answering your claim that "his(osama bin ladin) words/fatwas have no impact on the Muslim community". That was not ridicule but a questioning of a belief not in the quran (a sura) but one in your head.

Ah the classic anything a say that is possibly critical of islam (and that wasn't) in any way is a personal attack gambit, and after two posts excellent.Hypnosadist 22:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I refuse to speak with you unless you start assumming good faith and cease the personal attacks. If you keep doing so I will request ~~arbitration~~ RfC. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 22:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

3 for 3 kirby! Stop proving me right, i did not ridicule your faith!Hypnosadist 23:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I flagellate myself for going back on my word, but I must state this. You, not satisfied with violating Wikipedia policy, now commit logical fallacies about the word faith. Are you done polemicising, and are you ready to contribute to my goal of making this a better article? Please respond truthfully and without any personal attacks, if at all possible. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 23:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The creators of this website might not think that false aligations of personal attacks arn't personal attacks but i think they are. Where to you get off lieing about me and what i said, how possibly is;

"his words/fatwas have no impact on the Muslim community" pull the other one it has bells on!

Ridiculing islam?Hypnosadist 02:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you matured enough to follow Wikipedia policies and guidlines? If not, I'm not going to respond. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 02:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Stop lieing and makeing personal attacks and answer the question how possibly is;

"his words/fatwas have no impact on the Muslim community" pull the other one it has bells on!

Ridiculing islam?Hypnosadist 13:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with ridicule of Islam. It has to do with ridiculing of moi. What purpose does your "pull the other one it has bells on" serve, besides being an incitement? How much would be lost from this discussion if that phrase was removed altogether? How much would be gained from that statement being added? It is from these questions that my conclusion, that it was a direct attack on my person for no reason other than for the sake of attacking, was drawn. I am not a Muslim. I am not Iranian. I am a Wikipedian. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 01:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was harsh and sarcastic with my responce its because i found the statement either naive or silly. As you are iranian you will know that due to the War on Terror anywhere up to a million people have died because of OBL's words and the American reactions to them (and their impact).Hypnosadist 02:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I think there has been a misunderstanding. By "impact", I meant religious contractrual impact. By that I mean that Osama is not an Islamic scholar and thus his decrees and words are not binding according to Islam. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 07:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I propose a move merge to with Islamist political violence Political violence and Religious violence

The current title of the article, uses two POV terms: "extremist", and "terrorism". Looking at the Wikipedia article on extremism, it states "Extremism is a term used to describe the actions or ideologies of individuals or groups outside the perceived political center of a society; or otherwise claimed to violate common standards of ethics and reciprocity. [emphasis mine]". Wikipedia, with the policy of presenting a neutral point of view, should not perceive or claim extremism for the reader. Let the reader themselves decide whether or not these groups are extremists or not. I don't even want to begin to comment on the word "terrorism" as I don't want to be accused of editing the Wikipedia article to skew my view here. So I propose that "terrorism" be replaced with "violence". Also, the word "Islamic" also objectifies a POV as it assumes that Wikipedia takes the stance that these actions are "Islamic". And finally, most extremists, as told on the extremism article, are politically motivated, so it would be safe to replace extremist with the neutral term political. Anyone else care to share their thoughts on the matter? --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 22:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

"Islamic" Wikipedia does not make the claim this is islamic terrorism, the people who do it say its islamic.
"political" this is probably a good change.
"terrorism" has a clear un definition now an we are covering that although that should be made clear in the article.

Finally there should also be an article called Islamist political violence and this could cover the sectarian tortures and killings carried out in Iraq and around the world that did not make it to the "major league" of terrorism as Lee Hunter has argued about the tar heel terrorist.Hypnosadist 22:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Even if the people who do it claim it is Islamic, Wikipedia should not say that it is Islamic. Presenting the view of the people who do such things as the view of the article itself is a violation of Wikipedia policies.

And reguarding your "clear UN definition", that's still a violation of Wikipedia policies because we are not to present the UN's point of view on terrorism as the view of the article itself. Please see this article for further reasoning. Of course, we can still say that the UN claims that terrorists are X, just as we can say that the people who commit such actions claim that X actions are Islamic. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 23:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

If you can't call it Islamic how can it be called islamist is that just not another claim by wikipedia?Hypnosadist 02:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm.. good point. A better idea then, would be to leave that out of the article name entirely. Let's just merge this article's contents with religious violence and political violence. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 02:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't possibly see any reasonable reason why. There are finally a few good religious terrorism articles coming together, and you want to merge all of them into one, more politically correct, such? --TVPR 11:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

What does this have to do with political correctness? And I already presented reasonable reasons as to why the article should be removed. If you disagree, please explain. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 07:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, "politically motivated violence" rings more politically correct than Christian terrorism or Islamic terrorism in my ears, but, as you're sure to point out, that's my personal - and thus biased - opinion. However good your points for not calling this article "Islamic extremist terrorism", foremost the point that "The current title of the article, uses two POV terms: "extremist", and "terrorism"", the whole rename business was organized miles back in this discussion. I'm still not certain adding the "extremist" to the title was a god call, but at least it should soothe non-extremist muslims who do not condone terrorism. Same thing for christian terrorism, where there was a huge outcry from the fundamentalists who give a damn that the article be deleted altogether, as "Christianity is not compatible with terrorism"... But enough of that story, bygones etc., I'm against merging all this down to "Politically motivated violence" or similar because, mostly, it isn't. It's religious. My arguments:

It may have been politically motivated in Northern Ireland, not so in, for instance, India.
If anyone can make Osama go on record stating he's not religiously motivated, but politically, I'll be impressed. Also, it is the claims of the perpetrators that is interresting, not the rest of the worlds' assumptions.
Although agreeing on the point of "what defines terrorism and not", I will not accept a rename of this series of articles to "violence". If I beat up a christian, muslim, hindu or taoist because I disagree with their religious beliefs, it would not be terrorism (I think we all can agree on this). If said religious person was a very prominent (notable in WP terms) person, say, George W. Bush, it'd be a very much notable incident, and fit right in with "Religiously motivated violence". However, I don't think it belongs in an article side-by-side with the 9\11 airplanings, IRA bombings, Lebanese rocketeerings of Israel and following war (although we could put this in with "politically motivated") and so forth. All this would, with a "religiously motivated violence", come together in a "list of notable examples".
There already is an article regarding religiously motivated terrorism in general, no need for another. Merging all articles on various divisions of theism and these's acts of violence\terrorism would just result in one huge overlapping article with the potential of very much info getting lost in the process. A parallel to this would be merging every battle and major incident of WW2 into the main article, thus losing the big picture, and generally just messing everything up.

Please hit me back if you think I'm being very unreasonable here, but I do think we need to have the structure of today in the articles.--TVPR 09:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"Same thing for christian terrorism, where there was a huge outcry from the fundamentalists who give a damn that the article be deleted altogether, as "Christianity is not compatible with terrorism"..." this is just another example of NPOV being used to delete FACTS because they are not liked. This is an encyclopedia and wikilawyering is constantly being used by Theists in particular to force their POV over everyone elses'. IF muslims want to pretend that there is no such thing as islamic terrorism thats ok, its the deletetion of FACTS from wikipedia i have a problem with. This name change is being proposed to hide and mitigate the terrorism commited by the groups mentioned in this article.Hypnosadist 13:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Many of these questions have been discussed ad nauseum already (see the archive of the page move discussion at the top of this page) but here again are my thoughts for what little they are worth. This article attempts to tie together a very diverse and disjointed list of conflicts and events under what certain editors believe is a common theme (they all, in some way, involve acts of violence by Muslims). My opinion is that this is an arbitrary decision which has more to do with the current moral panic in the western world re. Islam and with the attempts by some editors to reinforce this hysteria by heaping as much "scary Islam stuff" as they can into large muddy pots. Among the unfortunate side effects of tossing everything into the Islamatic blender is that the focus is shifted from a deep understanding of specific insurgencies, militant groups and terrorist organizations. It also creates the false impression in the reader that there is a single story about terrorism and Islam. --Lee Hunter 16:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is far too large to merge anywhere else. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

TVPR: Who cares if it sounds more politically correct? The goal of Wikipedia is not political correctness, but rather NPOV. If a consequence of that is your perceived notions of political correctness, then so be it. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 03:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* All I meant with that was that it seems to me your suggestion has less to do with NPOV and reality and established policy etc. than to achieve political correctness. Now, that's my bias, and I said so before, quite clearly stating that this was my biased POV and nothing else - so could we please move on to the actual arguments I proposed? Nice and tidy numbered list?--TVPR 04:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

How does this have to do with political correctness? I never once brought up that topic, it was others who did. I explained my reasoning using Wikipedia policies.

Also, here's my response to your numbers:

1. Ok, so if it isn't politically motivated, then, like I said "Let's just merge this article's contents with religious violence and political violence."

2. See 1.

3. Therein lies our disagreement. I think it is perfectly acceptable for someone who mugs George Bush for religious reasons to be in the same article as hijackers and bombers. We should include notable occurrences, and let the reader decide if they are important or not.

4. That religiously motivated terrorism article needs to be updated and brought to better standing. What better way to do this than to merge this article's contents into it?

PS Hypnosadist, please be civil if you want to be taken seriously. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 04:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hm... Allright, but what about the articles on other religions' terrorists? --TVPR 09:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

What about them? he same thing applies. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 04:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi there Kirbytime. I disagree with you to merge this article to religious violence and political violence.

Islamic terrorism IS an example of religious terrorism, which IS a kind of religious violence. You can say that religious violence includes religious terrorism and therefore Islamic terrorism should have its own article.

"Religious terrorism refers to terrorism justified or motivated by religion and is a form of religious violence." from article religious terrorism Sandakanboy 04:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm against using the term terrorism. It's a loaded term and using it is a violation of of a neutral point of view. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 04:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

And i find not using terrorism for acts of terrorism highly POV.Hypnosadist 14:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

^^^You expect me to collaborate in improving this article when you have an attitude like that? How old are you? Twelve? And this is not an insult this is an honest question since you seem to be immature when it comes to understanding opposing viewpoints. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 07:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Kirby add names to your insults(the twelve year old gag) so that we know to whom you speak. NPOV means that all pov's are noted not just the most PC view. Christian terrorism is covered under Christian extremist terrorism that is the same title structure. In both cases the word extremist is used in order to try and separate the terrorist from "ordinary decent christians/muslims" and is really unneeded.Hypnosadist 15:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

What insults? I have not insulted a soul here, and if you were offended then I humbly apologize. Now, you seem to misunderstand the Wikipedia policy on NPOV, I recommend reading it again. Wikipedia does NOT note ALL points of view, that's garbage! Plus, we're supposed to have a neutral point of view. Have you read Hitler's talkpage? They talk about how they don't need to call Hitler evil, they let the reader deduce that himself. Let's look at the Hitler article and see what we find:

(April 20, 1889 – April 30, 1945) was Chancellor of Germany from 1933, and "Führer" (leader) of Germany from 1934 until his death. He was leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or NSDAP), better known as the Nazi Party.

Hitler gained power in a Germany facing crisis after World War I, using charismatic oratory and propaganda, appealing to economic need of the lower and middle classes, nationalism, anti-Semitism and anti-communism to establish a totalitarian or fascist dictatorship. With a restructured economy and rearmed military, Hitler pursued an aggressive foreign policy with the intention of expanding German Lebensraum ("living space"), which triggered World War II when Germany invaded Poland. At the height of its power, Nazi Germany occupied most of Europe, but it and the Axis Powers were eventually defeated by the Allies.

By then, Hitler's racial policies had culminated in the mass murder of at least eleven million people, including the deliberate genocide of about six million Jews, and the systematic killings of many other groups and nationalities, including Romany people, in what is now known as the Holocaust.

In the final days of the war, Hitler committed suicide in his underground bunker in Berlin with his newlywed wife, Eva Braun.

That's what this article should look like. We shouldn't pass judgments, we should present facts in a neutral tone and let the reader themselves judge who is an extremist, or who is a terrorist. Please, enough with your nonsense about "PC". Just because it disagrees with your POV does not make it "PC". Just because the facts are unfavorable to you does not make it "PC". Just because it follows Wikipedia policy does not make it "PC". So again I ask, how old are you honestly? Are you at least in college? --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 09:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I would support the merger. --Lee Hunter 13:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Kirby stop with the insults! Notice that the hitler article contains the Facts such as the holocaust and WW2, thats why its a good article as well as being NPOV. But here its delete after delete of facts, these terrorists kill in the name of islam FULL STOP, you don't like that then bitch at them not me. How about then the more factually titled Murderers who do it in the name of Islam and then we can let the reader decide if it is terrorism.Hypnosadist 15:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Please show me any insults I have stated. Plus, again you missed the point I was making with the Hitler article. Notice how it doesn't say "The Holocaust was wrong because it caused lots of suffering". That's a violation of "NPOV". The reader decides whether or not the Holocaust was wrong or not. Same thing with WW2. HOwever, if you say that "Organization X is terrorist", that's a violation of NPOV because calling them terrorist is a value judgment. Terrorist is a term with negative connotation, and there are very very few (if any at all?) organizations that consider themselves to be terrorists. And regarding your recomendation of the word "murderer", that's still POV because murder is by definition "premediated deliberate unlawful killing", and thus according to the laws in some jurisdictions someone might be a murderer while someone might be a soldier. "Murderer" is a violation of NPOV because it is not for us to decide what the laws are. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 01:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok how about Killers who do it in the name of Islam then?Hypnosadist 16:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I oppose merging, because of the length of the page and the importance of the topic. I do not care that much about the name, but I have not yet heard one that is better than Islamic extremist terrorism. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. This is a specific topic, other types of terrorism other than Islamic Extremist Terrorism exist. StevenBao ^(talk) 19:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Reverting quotes

(I asked DAde to justify his repeated insertion of a long list of quotes. He replied on my talk page so I've taken the liberty of copying his response here so that it can be discussed. --Lee Hunter 17:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC))

There are many reasons why the entire quotes should stay on this page.

1. The quotes are TRUE. 2. The quotes were cited by a MUSLIM. 3. The quotes were cited by a TERRORIST. DAde 17:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi me (Hypnosadist) and Lee have just had this chat (above) and he didn't want it at all (i think?) and i wanted it included due to the notability of home grown terrorists. We reached a compromise of a small paragraph about him with TWO full quran quotes and a link to the pdf of the hand writen letter to the daily tar heel. This provides maximum info in a reasonable space for such a hugh topic. The full expanded list of quotes was too long for this article, Lee how would you feel about a list of the numbers of the verses mentioned? I will revert to the above compromise with Lee.Hypnosadist 20:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me put it this way, if we have nothing in this article from Sayyid Qutb who was probably the most influential Islamist philosopher, and nothing from Osama Bin Laden, the most well-known terrorist why are we quoting this corn-fed American kid? If you even consider him a terrorist (which is debatable) he must be the most obscure and least influential terrorist of all time. It's also worth noting that even the Qutb and Bin Laden articles don't extensively quote their subjects. --Lee Hunter 23:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes Osama Bin Laden and Sayyid Qutb should be quoted (quite a lot) and preferentially to Mohammed Reza Taheriazar, i added some sources above with OBL quotes. "Qutb and Bin Laden articles don't extensively quote their subjects" and this should be rectified.Hypnosadist 23:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The topic is the Quran! The capter is called Interpretation of the Quran! But some wikipedians do not allow me to quote all necessary quotes. You can not compromise the Quran.DAde 15:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

We can try. --Lee Hunter 18:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

In fact, why down't we start quoting the Bible in the Christian Terrorism article? I refer of course to the juicier bits of the Old Testament, with the divinely approved incest and murder, not to mention the part where his god-ness basically smites half of Egypt in something as simple as a show of force? It should please anyone wanting to display the nastier sides of any religious texts, and the interpretations of these. --TVPR 05:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do!Hypnosadist 05:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I have rm'ed the bit about the student. Totally over-specific and unneeded here. Marskell 13:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This topic is a general overview. Anyone who wants to know more about this particular person's thoughts can read the article about him. --Lee Hunter 13:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

He needs to be in this article so you can go to his much longer personal article. The notability is due to his home grown nature, he's never been a refugee or whatever excuse makes the suicide bombing of civilians "normally acceptable" to many POV's. He is the least notable home grown terrorist, i'm looking for the quotes of the 7/7 bombers and the 2 british guys who went to isreal to do bombings (one did the others failed and he was found face down in the sea). Lee are you going to add Osama Bin Laden and Sayyid Qutb quotes?Hypnosadist 15:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

No I'm not going to add bin Laden and Qutb quotes. I only mentioned those two in our earlier discussion to point out the absurdity of quoting an obscure semi-terrorist when we don't quote people who are actually well-known and influential. Since I think the article arises from a flawed premise, I don't have an interest in adding anything to it. I'm just trying to moderate some of the excesses. --Lee Hunter 15:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

flawed premise?Hypnosadist 17:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, flawed. To save energy, I'll repeat what I wrote further up this page "This article attempts to tie together a very diverse and disjointed list of conflicts and events under what certain editors believe is a common theme (they all, in some way, involve acts of violence by Muslims). My opinion is that this is an arbitrary decision which has more to do with the current moral panic in the western world re. Islam and with the attempts by some editors to reinforce this hysteria by heaping as much "scary Islam stuff" as they can into large muddy pots. Among the unfortunate side effects of tossing everything into the Islamatic blender is that the focus is shifted from a deep understanding of specific insurgencies, militant groups and terrorist organizations. It also creates the false impression in the reader that there is a single story about terrorism and Islam." --Lee Hunter 19:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

To save energy; jihad is the common theme. Hypnosadist 19:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, there you go. I rest my case. --Lee Hunter 19:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

"Well, there you go. I rest my case" ???Hypnosadist 19:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm again referring to the idea that there's a dime-store thread on which we can string a wildly divergent batch of incidents, political struggles and miscellaneous crazies from hither and yon and say it's all "jihad" or it's all "islamic terrorism". This suits the moral panic of the time but it's not a very good premise for an article. --Lee Hunter 20:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Then you simply don't comprehend jihad or how that concept is central to jihadies. I am quite capable of understanding that every crime ever commited by a muslim is NOT some part of a grand jihad conspiracy. But there is a reason there is a terrorist group called islamic jihad. Just because you think its un-pc to talk about the failing of anyone who isn't a WASP or there ideas does not stop it existing. You are simply pushing pov this is all made up by the government and the media, i've got the facts but the truth just doesn't seem to be good enough if your un-pc. Hypnosadist 20:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The flip-side of Lee's coin is that separating political violence and religious violence is often impossible. There's nothing wrong per se with a page documenting terrorism with "Islam" as the broad, unifying thread. We don't have to heap in "scary Islam stuff" at all. We should have a general level survey of the topic. And this does not include what Hypno and DAde (the latter is trolling) are adding. Marskell 19:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The concept of Deen (Arabic term) means that many muslims see no separation of the political and the religious. What is a "general level survey of the topic".Hypnosadist 19:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The entire quotation is necessary! This is a analysis of the Quran. Only two quotes are too few because it does not show the entire intolerant message of the Quran. My version is still incomplete, but it shows the most important intolerant verses which Taherie cited. I´m disappointed that on wikipedia are so many terror apologists, and so many orwelian politically correct leftists who want to hide the truth.The reeducation efforts of this ideologes will fail! The truth is on my side.DAde 18:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Immediately above is disruption and POINT. A desire to show "the intolerant message of the Quran" is not a basis on which to add content. Hypno, frankly, you haven't a single logical argument above. This isn't about American Islamic terrorists, and even if it were, a bungled attack by a lone lunatic wouldn't qualify. Throw him in the list of attacks with a single sentence if you feel it so pertinent. Marskell 19:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Its simple he learnt about jihad then he did jihad, He says that!Hypnosadist 19:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Ya, so? Editorial discretion means choosing things that rise to a certain level of prominence and will have staying power. He's a curiosity, nothing more. Marskell 19:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

@ Marskell The topic of this article is islamic terrorism. The intention of the "Interpretation of the Quran" chapter is to show the Quranic justification which is used by islamic terrorists. But you don´t want to see intolerant quran verses because you are a terrorism apologist.DAde 19:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

DAde, avoid personal attacks. If you'd like to get blocked, you're well on your way. Marskell 19:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hypno. Which quotes are you refering to - lee wouldn't revert the paragraph and two quotes he has agreed? -- Szvest 21:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

From the top of this thread "We reached a compromise of a small paragraph about him with TWO full quran quotes and a link to the pdf of the hand writen letter to the daily tar heel." it was lee's edit of the long list of quotes down to two and my replacing a jihadwatch link with the pdf of his hand writen letter to the daily tar heal (student newspaper). I reverted back to this edit when DAde tried to reinstate the long list of quran quotes, along with lee and others. Then when an editor deletes the whole section, not only does lee not revert back to the agreed "paragraph and two quotes" but he complements the editor on removeing it. That i feel this is Very Bad Faith Editing. Hypnosadist 21:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. I just don't agree about the long list too. -- Szvest 23:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy with the paragraph and some mention of the quran quotes he gives to anybody who will listen as a final compromise. It was a protest revert because of the bad faith.Hypnosadist 23:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Lee (to guess) didn't revert b/c he was alone. When two people are adding bullshit, it's hard to be by yourself. I do hope Lee reverts; I'll be reverting it again tomorrow because it's senseless, and if you think your argument will stand up anywhere we can take it, I suspect you're wrong. Marskell 23:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I am confused Hypno! You said I reverted back to this edit when DAde tried to reinstate the long list of quran quotes and now you say I'm happy with the paragraph and some mention of the quran quotes! -- Szvest 23:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hypno added two tangential Qu'ran quotes. Dade provided a mass list. I (and Lee earlier) reverted all of them because they're all BS in context. Hypno wants to suggest that his list edit is the "consensus". Marskell 23:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Wrong the edit was lee's.Hypnosadist 23:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the history and I don't know what you mean. Granted, there have been twenty-odd reverts and "re-reverts" but I think I'm representing the situation properly. Marskell 00:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok i did not write it! In the talk section student newspapers arn't reliable sources this edit turns up and i finish the section with "If you can live the current edit (your one)of the Mohammed Reza Taheriazar section i can.Hypnosadist 21:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)". This edit held for two days then DAde started reverting to long version. Both me and lee reverted back to the "paragraph and two quotes" edit and DAde to the long one. He stopped. Then you turn up!

I have rm'ed the bit about the student. Totally over-specific and unneeded here. Marskell 13:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This topic is a general overview. Anyone who wants to know more about this particular person's thoughts can read the article about him. --Lee Hunter 13:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You remove the whole section and Lee agrees and does not edit back to the agreed paragraph and two quotes, this i feel is bad faith editing on his part (not yours).Hypnosadist 00:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Since when am I obliged to revert the article to a version that suits you (and doesn't suit me)? The only reason there was a "consensus" is that you absolutely refused to allow those quotes to be removed, so I cut them down as much as I could. It's not like I actually agreed with your position. If another editor wants to remove the rest of them, they have my full support. If you want to revert, that's your business, not mine. --Lee Hunter 14:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

A compromise is a deal both sides don't like! Fine i'll just make sure never to assume good faith in your edits or what you say.Hypnosadist 14:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The Quran quotes are true and the opinion of Taherie is true.DAde 14:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you please refrain from POV pushing and respect other people concensus? Are you an expert in the field to suggest that The Quran quotes are true and the opinion of Taherie is true.? -- Szvest 22:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Revert warring on this section is getting silly and people are going to get banned. Can we have a discusion the reasons and policy for the edits. DAde with the small quote mention on this page the user can then link to Mohammed Reza Taheriazar's page for the full list of quran quotes that he believes makes it right to try and commit mass murder of innocent civilians. Marskell he is one of a few americans that have turned traitor and terrorist and as such is notable, especially as he expains his reasons in open source letters. He is one of the few terrorists i know that gives chapter and verse on his religious motivations to become a terrorist.Hypnosadist 14:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Hypno, three or four people have disagreed with your preferred. Dade´s edit is just a massive POV text dump--you´re suggesting your edit as a "middle ground" relative to his, which is gaming things. It´s explained at length above why the student does not belong. Marskell 19:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Its not my preferred edit! Thats the point! i could go back to reverting to the long list of quotes which is what i wanted in the first place, your arguement that he's not a good enough terrorist, only injuring people and spreading terror, is nothing compared to his detailed religous justifications for his actions and the actions of others. This is the point of this article, to show the links between the three words in the title. I'll keep going to the middle ground to see if the majority of editors will support it, its held before.Hypnosadist 19:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

A majority of editors clearly do not support it. Kirbytime reverted it once, Lee would prefer it not there, I don't see that Fayssal wants it (though he hasn't commented at length), and obviously I do not want it. To argue/repeat:

This isn't about "homegrown terrorists" and regardless this is not an encyclopedia expected to give extra coverage to American issues; the last point should be obvious, but some times it needs repeating.
The event in question and the person in question are exceptionally minor relative to other events and people covered under this topic. You asked "what is a general level article" and I answered "Editorial discretion means choosing things that rise to a certain level of prominence and will have staying power." Your edit fails on both counts. Marskell 07:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not about "American issues" its about dealing with the lie that terrorism is created/justified by the bad life that the terrorist has in Gaza or the West Bank. This is about "Islamic extremist terrorism" and Taheriazar is prime example of the Meme of "Islamic extremist terrorism". He is infected with this philosphy, then he acts on it and now he freely tells everyone about it. He shows that "Islamic extremist terrorism" crosses national, social, economic and cultural boundries not thought possible by many people (and that is notable). I want to add more on this issue with the 7/7 bombers from Britain as two of them have released video threats/statements but until this is resolved i'm not going to bother as Lee has said he'll fight an excess of facts.Hypnosadist 16:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Your treating this like MySpace. We aren´t exposing any lies here and we shouldn´t be overloading this with current event cruft. If you´d like to get a request for mediation, do so; I will continue to revert. And you have not answered the fact that you are the only contributor who is insisting on this. Marskell 19:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hypno writes "Lee has said he'll fight an excess of facts". I'm not sure that those were my exact words, but I confess that I do fight the insertion of irrelevant, redundant, off topic or just plain silly facts. For example, when I first happened upon this article the list of Islamic terrorist acts included the Barbary pirates (!!!). The job of the editor is to remove stuff that doesn't belong and it doesn't matter how "true" it is. Otherwise we'd end up with one large article containing the content of the other 1.5 million Wikipedia articles. --Lee Hunter 20:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well i have to give you the Barbary pirates Lee, that is just mud slinging and should have been removed. "Otherwise we'd end up with one large article containing the content of the other 1.5 million Wikipedia articles." Yes thats why a two line name check for some one so you can go to their article and read about them there, but they do need the name check.Hypnosadist 23:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the above as a valid argument Hypno. We have a "see also" section if follow your comment above. The thing here is that Taheriazar is one of the hundreds of Islamist terrorists and all of them have a lot to say (less or more than Taheriazar has had). Now, why Taheriazar and not others? What makes his case different and more encyclopaedic than others? This would lead us to what Lee's just said above. -- Szvest 14:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

There are thousands and thousands of people with views on terrorism and Islam. There is no reason and no need for us to mention them all. You have yet to establish why this one student is particularly noteable. It's as simple as that. I don't currently have an article on wikipedia. Perhaps one day I will. However I'm pretty sure my views on Islamic terrorism will never be in this article and I don't think I'd want them to either... Nil Einne 23:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Taheri is noteworthy because he justified his attacks with Quran quotes.DAde 15:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I see the edit war is still going on! Any chance of going to the compromise position.Hypnosadist 21:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Now this edit war has moved to Criticism of Islam can we talk about a compromise?Hypnosadist 19:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This isn't an edit war, this is disruption. User:DAde is using sock IPs in efforts to avoid WP:3RR limits. If this continues he will likely face a community banning. (→Netscott) 20:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

If he is using sock puppets he should be banned. My position is still the same, i think a line mentioning him (so there is a link to his wikipage) is not too much to ask.Hypnosadist 20:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Osama Bin Laden and Sayyid Qutb quotes

The wikiquote page has some great quotes [46] we should see which ones need to be added. There is no page for Sayyid Qutb.Hypnosadist 18:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The 1998 fatwa by OBL et al. [47] Hypnosadist 19:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi going to add this quote by OBL from the very start of the above 1998 fatwa;

Praise be to God, who revealed the Book, controls the clouds, defeats factionalism, and says in His Book: "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)"; and peace be upon our Prophet, Muhammad Bin-'Abdallah, who said: I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but God is worshipped, God who put my livelihood under the shadow of my spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my orders.

And i think this should go in the Interpretations of the Qur'an section. As there is already one edit war ongoing i thought i'd put this on the talk page first to get the positioning and wording right for this.Hypnosadist 21:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

US State Department list

Anyone else think the list should go? I see absolutely no reason for us to replicate it. If people want to know it, they can visit the website (although the link appears to have changed so someone should find a new one) which we can perhaps include in the external links. I considered just removing it but decided to ask here first given the high level of controversy. Nil Einne 22:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Book lists

While I personally agree with Lee that most of the books should be removed if we were to mantain them, we need to offer other books with counter points of view. I suspect finding some wouldn't be hard, the only question is which ones to add? 23:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Like which ones? You can dig up the fatwahs issued by OBL and others I'm sure. Why not keep them on there. Again, unless you've read them, how can you decide if they are relavent or not?Culmo80 20:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)culmo80

Wrong. You want them included, you must explain why they are relevant. They look to me like the usual bunch of Islamophobic bs that's thrown into the mixer whenever someone wants to have a go at Muslims. Books on "dhimmitude" are, for instance, absolutely nothing to do with "terrorism", although I'm sure Bat Ye'or would have a thing or two to say about "terrorists" too, given the platform to do so. Grace Note 07:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I restored the further reading section for now until discussion is closed. -- Szvest

^{Wiki me up ®} 11:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't. It's the correct practice here to remove contested material until the dispute is resolved. Putting a list of Islamophobic books would maybe be okay in an article titled Books written to stir up hatred or whatever, but these are not works that seriously discuss the subject matter of this article. Grace Note 07:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Islamic extremism should not forward to this article

This article is supposed to be about Islamic Extremist Terrorism, not just Islamic extremism. I would say that blowing up ancient Buddha statues, executing converts from Islam, cutting off thieves' hands, gang raping a woman for her brother's mistakes, killing women for dating outside the tribe, hanging teenage boys for being gay and cutting off little girls' clits all fall under Islamic extremism, however none of that is generally considered to be terrorism. Islamic extremism should either have an article of it's own or redirect to Islamism or Criticism of Islam. --BillyTFried 20:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

And many of those subjects you mention are only indirectly related to Islam. They are tribal practices or criminal activities carried out by people who call themselves Muslim. --Lee Hunter 14:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Is three many? Arrow740 09:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It's like calling the execution of criminals in the US "Christian judicial murder" just because the man who signs the warrant is a Christian. Grace Note 07:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It is "like" it, but worse. Arrow740 09:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I think it would be about equal. Grace Note 07:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That's irrelevant because the same thing can be said for terrorist attacks carried out by people who call themselves Muslim. All of the acts I mentioned are carried out in the name of Islam, just as the terrorist acts of this article are. --BillyTFried 17:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

How does one carry out things in the name of Islam? Can you explain how that is done? Grace Note 07:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If you do someting, and claim you are doing them in the name of Islam, you are doing them in the name of Islam, assuming you are a muslim.--Sefringle 05:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

That probably makes too much sense. Arrow740 09:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The Nazis invaded and terrorised several countries in Europe under the motto "Gott mit uns". Who's for including them in Christian extremist terrorism? Grace Note 07:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If you do something, claiming that certain verses of a religious text tell you to do it, then you are probably acting in the name of that religion, although you need not represent it. Enigma059 17:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, quite. Do you see how that doesn't make a particular act of violence "Islamic" or "Christian" though? What this article wants to discuss are acts of violence that some people call "terrorism" perpetrated by Muslims whose views are considered by some to be extreme. Both "some"s include Muslims, who will say, wearily, there is nothing "Islamic" about the acts. Grace Note 07:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

And I suppose now there was nothing Christian about the Crusades either then eh? Jeez. --BillyTFried 08:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

How Muslims feel about Islamic terrorism has been explained in the article, there is no need to express that viewpoint in the title. Whether or not the views of these people are extremist in nature, the fact remains that the activities they indulge in are widely regarded as terrorism, and that fact (some may say it is a POV) should be included in the title for the sake of accuracy. Enigma059 10:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can wrestle much meaning out of that but I guess you're saying that you don't agree that there's a problem that the article is about something that many people do not think exist. My apologies if I'm missing your point but there is every reason to express how Muslims feel about "Islamic terrorism", given that it is one viewpoint that there is such a thing and another that there is not. Views that are not well represented among the kind of people who edit Wikipedia tend to be sidelined here, but that does not mean that it's right that that should happen. "Whether or not these people are extremist" is surely apropos, given that the article purports to be about "extremist" "terrorism". Terrorism itself is a terribly difficult concept. This article, and others like it, take a particular line and a particular tone that, while they are generally held among white Westerners and consequently tend to be reflected in the media and some academic, or quasi-academic, literature, are not close to neutral or objective. Those are our aims though, or at least you need to make a better show of pretending they are. Grace Note 09:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Article Lead

I've again reverted Grace Note's change to the article lead:

Islamic extremist terrorism is a term some commentators use to refer to acts of what they describe as terrorism that are believed by its supporters and practitioners to be in furtherance of their understanding of the goals of Islam. Fred Halliday argues that most Muslims consider these acts to be egregious violations of Islam's ethics

back to:

Islamic extremist terrorism is terrorism done to further Islam as believed by its supporters and practitioners. Fred Halliday argues that most Muslims consider these acts to be egregious violations of Islam's ethics.

In Grace Note's version I count a total of four subjunctive clauses in one sentence. Those clauses seem designed to make the precise point that is made in the very next sentence by Fred Halliday. As such, it's an unreadable mess.

Grace Note says he feels that the simpler, more readable version is "hideously one-sided." I don't see that. Grace Note, could you explain exactly what is one-sided about it? If the opening is unbalanced we should surely revise it, but we don't fix anything by turning the first sentence into something that only tangentially resembles English. Nandesuka 17:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The thing you reverted to is barely even English, dude. With respect, is it your second language? The subjunctive is a mood by the way. There are no instances of it in the paragraph I reverted to. I'm afraid I can't really discuss this meaningfully with someone who is not clear on that, nor with someone who doesn't believe it's onesided to describe things in a particular way when we're perfectly aware that there are other ways to describe them. Grace Note 08:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Grace Note, could you please explain the reasons why you prefer the other, wordier version? You haven't done that yet. Doing that will surely help this conversation move forward. Thanks. Nandesuka 15:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This debate was closed too quickly.--Patchouli 15:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. 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 debate was no move —Mets501 (talk) 01:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Islamist Terrorism → Islamic extremist terrorism or Islamic terrorism — Islamist Terrorism is a factually incrorect name for Islamic terrorism. No news organization calls it Islamist terrorism. It has been called Islamic terrirism, extremist islam, islamic estremist terrorism, but never islamist terrorism. For a few examples, PBS calls is Islamic terrorism. BBC calls it Muslim terrorism. MSNBC calls it Islamic terrorism. The New York Times calls it Islamic radicalism. If we are to be factually accurate, we have to call it Islamic terrorism, and not Islamist terrorism Sefringle 02:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This is such an old debate, I can't bring myself to get into it again but let's start with your citations. The New York Times used "Islamic radicalism" because they were, uh, talking about "Islamic radicalism" (i.e. not specifically terrorism). The BBC article you cite uses neither "Islamic Terrorism" or "Muslim terrorism" (it does mention "Muslim extremism"). I think you need to come up with some better sources. --Lee Hunter 21:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, here is another BBC arthcle that uses Islamic terrorism.--Sefringle 00:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

And here's a better link [48] which shows that "islamic terrorism" only appears 55 times on the BBC site (and many of those instances are from blogs and viewer comments). That's about 1% of the instances where the word "terrorism" is used. You'll get similar results at the New York Times site. "Terrorism" appears more than 35,000 times but "islamic terrorism" is used rarely, about 350 times. Obviously the media prefers to describe terrorism as simply "terrorism" and hardly ever calls it "islamic terrorism". You'll get similar results even with Fox News, which I found surprising.--Lee Hunter 01:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Compare that with [49] this, where there are only 6 hits for islamist terrorism. Islamic terrorism is used far more often than islamist terrorism. --Sefringle 02:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

But neither "Islamist terrorism" (7 hits) nor "Islamic terrorism" (a mere 52 hits) is the preferred usage on the BBC site. As I pointed out above, the BBC overwhelmingly uses "terrorism" by itself (5450 hits).--Lee Hunter 04:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add # '''Support''' or # '''Oppose''' on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Survey - Support votes

Sefringle 02:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
This looks to be a very partisan issue, and I'm not sure how to compromise on this one. I'm pretty left of center, so I feel "Islamic extremist terrorism" is more accurate. Samboy 09:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Survey - Oppose votes

--Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 03:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Strongly oppose I would suggest moving to something like "Extremism in the Islamic world" or "Extremism and Islam". There is no such thing as "Islamic" terrorism just as there is no such thing as "Christian" terrorism or "Hindu" terrorism, as the mainstream interpretation of all world religions strongly and equally condemns violence against innocent persons. As I noted above, a careful study of websites shows that the media clearly favors using "terrorism" by itself and very rarely employs the phrase "Islamic terrorism" (when they do, it's often in editorials, op-eds or reader comments). "Islamic terrorism" is inaccurate and inappropriate and reflects the cultural bias of a certain segment of Western society. That's why it is generally avoided by careful writers. --Lee Hunter 16:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Hell no, as I've made quite clear in the past. The best name is Islamic terrorism, but this is a thousand times bettern than "Islamic extremist terrorism" which is nonsense. KazakhPol 21:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Definitions:

Terrorism → Terrorism is a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political, nationalist, or religious goals.
Islamism → Islamism is a set of political ideologies that hold that Islam is not only a religion, but also a political system that governs the legal, economic and social imperatives of the state according to its interpretation of Islamic Law.

It would sound weird but it really reminds me of people confusing Monaco w/ Morocco! I'd say I am from Morocco. The other goes Ohh you're from Monaco! Such a civilized place! -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

Google search for "Islamist terrorism"

First hit is this article. And then there are a few that use the term Islamist terrorism, including:

etc. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 03:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC) --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 06:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The arguments here seem to be for Islamic terrorism yet the proposal is for Islamic extremist terrorism. What gives? If I'm reading the AfD correctly, this page was moved here from Islamic extremist terrorism because labelling the organizations as "extremist" is POV. It's also probably not true in the case of Hamas or Hezbollah, since they have active and successful political wings that operate in the mainstream. – Anþony talk 21:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Kirbytime, are these websites more notable than well-known news sources?--Sefringle 00:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Does it matter? Heritage.org is a conservative thinktank that I believe is quite notable. Daniel Pipes is, well, I'm sure everyone on this talk page knows him. You're right, I haven't found a big corporation that uses Islamist terrorism. In any case, it doesn't matter. I don't see why big corporations have to be the ones that use it in order for it to be acceptable as an article name on Wikipedia. And besides, I'm against the term "terrorism" in the article name in the first place. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 06:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

This is about factual accuracy, not the mistakes of a few conservative thinktanks. Major news corperations generally define the terms the majority uses, at least in this case. The majority in the world calls it Islamic, not islamist, and that is why it needs to be changed. Wikipedia is not supposed to promote political ideology. It is supposed to promote factual accuracy. Islamist is a political ideology by muslims to say that the terrorist attacks aren't Islamic. However the term is not factually accurate, and is not commonly used.--Sefringle 04:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

See here vs. here. Google has over 900,000 hits for Islamic terrorism, while Islamist terrorism has less than 300,000. Which is the more notable name?--Sefringle 04:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, this begs the question of what is the most widely used terminology. The overwhelming usage (perhaps by an order of magnitude) is neither "Islamic terrorism" nor "Islamist terrorism" nor "American terrorism" etc it is simply to call it "terrorism" without qualifying it as Islamic or anything else. --Lee Hunter 04:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Would it be accurate to say that not all Islamic terrorism (i.e. clerically sanctioned political violence against civilian targets) is Islamist? Bwithh 12:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Another Don't forget that Google test should be analyzed smartly and w/ much scrunity. There are mirror sites, most of them mirror wikipedia and other sites.

Islamic terrorism renders 782 pages. In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 782 already displayed. Source: Google.com

Islamist terrorism renders 708 pages. In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 708 already displayed. Source: Google.com

In other words, Google while indexing duplicates entries. Proof? Compare this with this and you'll find that the 2 last pages (results) are the same! One at 782 place and the other at 999. That's why scrunity is indeed needed. Cheers -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 12:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

OR /references tagging

Especially for such a controversial topic as this, article content needs to start off with good reliable sources and references first as well as a commitment to balance - these should not be an afterthought for later. Bwithh 03:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

"MILITANT JIHADIST"s

this is the only NPOV way (and the most accurate) name for the people you are trying to describe I am no fan of such people but that is what they are, thats what ther CIA calls them JIHADI is the non-anglo version, but jihadist is also correct. "Terrorist" is a value statement and is innapropriate for Wikipedia, there is no need to use such a word, the description of their actions presented in a NPOV is much more powerful in showing their charactor, using words like terrorist takes credibility away from the article, and anyone viewing it will look at it with suspicion. The organizations described are better able at demonising themselves without any need for us to do so.Komaknacon 18:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that terrorist is a value statement and is inappropriate for Wikipedia, but I disagree with using the CIA's definition. Wikipedia should not push the POV of anyone, including the CIA. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 10:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Article Name

Having read the page it is obvious that this subject is sensitive to both sides of the discussion. While it is true that the popular media uses terms such as "Islamist", "Islamic Extremist" and "Islamic Terrorist", all such terms are really shibboleths (empty of meaning). Furthermore, aside from offending Muslims, they convey a negative connotation. However, groups like Hizbollah and Hamas are not considered terrorists in Lebanon or the Palestinian territories. However, this "phenomenon" (for lack of a better world) is something unique, or at least strongly associated with, the Muslim world. Therefore it deserves to be connected to the current socio-political circumstances of the Muslim world in a way that does not convey an inherently negative meaning that would violate WP:NPOV

As to the word "terrorism", I propose we replace it with "militancy". This more accurately describes the phenomenon regardless of whether it is connected to politics, or not; and whether it targets civilians, or not. If a group is considered to be a terrorist organization by a particular country, then that can be included in its profile on the article, this would not violate NPOV. And instead of the word "Islamic" (which confers legitimacy, also violating NPOV) and "Islamist" (which is a shibboleth) the most neutral term would be "Muslim" (which merely conveys that the individual(s) are Muslims, and therefore is factual and NPOV). If individual groups claimed any sort of "Islamic" legitimacy, then this should be addressed on an individual basis.

This would allow us to identify a specific trend in Muslim societies, which we would call "Muslim militancy", which would be more precise, less controversial and at the same time inclusive of all relevant entities. For instance, organizations like Fatah, which are not overtly Islamic, could also be included in this category, as could Mujahideen-e-Khalq, whose "Islamic" status is controversial. This would also avoid characterizing organizations with political wings (e.g. Hamas and Hizbollah) as terrorists, when paramilitary activity is only one facet of their operations. For all these reasons, this is more useful than the current title, in my opinion.

I would welcome any thoughts on this proposal to move Islamist terrorism to Muslim militancy.

Alexander.Hainy 19:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I know lets call its nice people who do nothing wrong in the name of islam and have done with this. There is a difference between NPOV which Muslim militancy isn't and total factual inaccuracy. I'm not writeing for the hundridth time about how all these crimes are done in the name of islam etc read the above. The point you have is that there should be a article to do with the slightly more minor issues in this area such as Hamas training children to be suicide bombers etc.Hypnosadist 21:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, let me address your statement: all these crimes are done in the name of Islam. Some people in the world would argue that (1) not all of these things are crimes (I have to emphasize: not me in this case), and (2) that to accept that they are done in the name of Islam is to accept the POV of the perpitrators. Neither of these things are NPOV, so even if these people claim to carry out these acts in the name of Islam, that doesn't make it Islamic in NPOV.

Furthermore "Muslim militancy" is factually accurate because all the people you are talking about are Muslim militants. And you didn't address my contention that the name of this article is a shibboleth.

Finally, that was not the point I was making. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia should represent things factually, without favouring any one viewpoint over another. The fact is that "Islamist Terrorist" - aside from lacking any real meaning - represents a particular worldview. I do not believe anyone would reasonably disagree with "Muslim Militant" being a neutral description and a genus into which all the organizations you have listed would fit. You are rightly concerned that things be represented correctly, however it should be done in a way that is favourable to no particular worldview.

I think this is an issue which should be discussed properly and reasonably. Just because it is difficult to find a NPOV title for this article doesn't mean we should stop. We must discuss and come to some sort of logical consensus.

Alexander.Hainy 01:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand Npov, the POV of the perpitrators is primary when we have verifiable sourced info on why they say they do it. Then to be a Npov encyclopedia we add the Pov's of those who disagree to the extent they are notable, such as some islamic scholar who says "terrorism isn't nice and REAL muslim don't do it". We have a UN agreed definition of what constitutes terrorism, its the common sence definition any natural english speaker understood it to be;

Someone who deliberatly targets civilians with violence for political effect.

Also Islamist has a specific meaning that being those who want to impose islamic law on non-muslims, this does not need to be violent it can be done through democracy (there are Islamist parties in some countries).

So from the above we know what an act of islamist terrorism is, its an atempt to force muslim values, priorities or ideas through violence on civilians. The streets of Iraq, Lebanon, Thailand, Indonesia, as well as New York, Madrid and London. That is not muslim militancy! Its terrorism to use power tools on the body of a fellow iraqi because he/she is the wrong type of muslim, and then dump his/her body in his/her nieghbourhood so you can use TERROR to ethnicly clense an area. Thats Terrorism!

"Muslim Militant" is utterly meaningless, it could just be a muslim with strong political views he expresses legitamately in his country (campaining, going on marches or handing out flyers). But you could not call that person an "Islamist Terrorist" as in the definition above.Hypnosadist 02:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the better name would be Muslim terrorist, since these groups, including Hamas and Hisbollah are terrorists, by the definition of terrorism.[50] I personally think "Islamist" is inaccurate, as no news orginization I have ever seen has used that word to describe islamic terrorism, and personally, I think it is stupid. Still, if you want to move it, you can request to do so at Wikipedia:Requested moves--Sefringle 03:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

In response to Hypnosadist, if you say the POV of the perpitrators is crucial then we shouldn't call them "terrorists" either, because they do not consider themselves as such. Terrorism has an inherently negative connotation and I don't believe it accurately defines the phenomenon (although it may be applicable to certain instances). If you read Muslims and Modernity by Clinton Bennet, who is an expert in the field, he describes Al-Qaeda as "Radical Revisionists". This is because they have effectively turned mainstream thinking on its head.

Furthermore, I do not agree that all these groups can be labelled as terrorists, Hezbollah in particular is not on the list of terrorist organizations in most countries, including the EU. If we say "because we think their actions are terrorism" then we should label them as terrorists, this is not NPOV because it is our POV. So in addition to being a word which does not describe the phenomenon completely, it is also not a description endorsed by the majority view.

As for the second point. I am in agrement with Sefringle that the term "Muslim" is a better qualifier than "Islamist" or "Islamic". For a start, Islamist is a word coined to describe Muslims who believe Islam has political connotations (not who want to impose Islamic law on non-Muslims), and if you look at over 1000 years of intellectual history that has been the view of almost all Muslim scholars. This confirms my suspicion that the term "Islamist" is, in reality, vacuous.

In addition to this, the views of al-Qaeda and others represent a minority view on the subject. Even if they are the perpetrators, it is not sufficient to consider them "Islamic" because they say so (or even because the majority of the lay people consider them to be). In a situation like this we must look to the writings of expert Islamic scholars such as Yusuf al-Qaradawi (Qatar) or Ayatullah Seestani (Iraq).

I am actually very interested in actually covering this important phenomenon on wikipedia. But it is important to recognize that it goes beyond terrorism; it is a whole set of ideas, not just about Islam and politics (what you might call "Islamism"), but a worldview. As I said, Bennet uses the term "Radical Revisionists" - which I understand is too cumbersome for wikipedia - but I think we can agree on the "Radical" part. So if "militancy" is too ambiguous (and I can see where you are coming from) I think we can use the term "Muslim Radicalism".

"Muslim Radicalism" thereby describes the whole phenomenon (including the acts of terrorism) and the motivation of the perpetrators, but at the same time not giving them legitimacy by using "Islamic", and recognizing that they are not uniformly considered "terrorists". All of this without giving into that strange word "Islamist"!

What are your thoughts? Alexander.Hainy 13:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you have said alexander. Sounds like a good idea. I just have one question. Like you said, Hamas is an umbrella organization, and the military wing is just one aspect. So is someone who works as a charity director considered "militant"? Thanks. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 08:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I could see where hypnosadist was coming from on "militancy". Maybe he's right and it isn't a suitable definition either. Which is why I would opt for something like "radicalism". Alexander.Hainy 11:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV is not a PC freaks charter, we have a word in the english language for these people (lots but hey!) and its called a terrorist (UN deffined). We are here to make an encyclopedia, not make mass murder into multiple human discomfort. Kirby and fayssal do have some points about the Taliban and those members of hamas who don't try to kill children (directly), we do need (as i have said before, many times) need a page for "Islamic militancy" to cover those groups. PS on hamas the EU says the "military" is a terrorist organisation and the UK and USA say all of it is terrorist.Hypnosadist 16:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hypnosadist, please read my post below, under "yawn". I appreciate what you are saying, but I don't think you've understood me.

To reply to what you have said, please see definition of terrorism. The UN has no definition of terrorism, only an academic consensus. Even if we accept this academic consensus, it doesn't change the fact that not all the groups you have listed are universally accepted as terrorists. For instance, in the case of Hezbollah the preponderant view seems to be in the negative. The article itself states:

Russia,[16] the European Union,[17] and several other countries including the China, India, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, Malaysia, Thailand, and Indonesia, among others, do not consider Hezbollah a terrorist organization.

Therefore it is not NPOV to include Hezbollah in the list of organizations, as it presupposes the minority (USA, UK etc.) view is more valid than the majority. If we do that, then we should include those organizations that Egypt or Syria consider "terrorists", which is patently incorrect. To keep Hezbollah on this list under the current title is to assert that they are terrorists because we think so!

What I am saying is that the phenomenon we are discussing cannot be accurately described by the term "Islamist Terrorism" (which, as I have already said, is meaningless). Both it and "Islamic Terrorist" are just politically expedient terms. If we really want to describe this multi-faceted phenomena, we should call it "Muslim Radicalism", or something along those lines. You simple cannot talk about the terrorism in isolation, it doesn't make any sense. Because the terrorism is merely the most violent and obvious expression of a radical ideological current in Muslim societies.

But if we're determined to talk about only "Terrorism", as opposed to the complete phenomenon, then why are Hezbollah on the list? My point is not that I want to remove Hezbollah, as I believe they belong to a similar phenomenon to Hamas or al-Qaeda, but that we cannot be consistent under the current title.

Alexander.Hainy 19:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Again you are missing the point of NPOV, it is not to have no POV but all notable POV's covered. So in the case of Hezbollah an organisation that fires 100's of rockets with cluster munitions (loads of bullets rapped round the explosive) into civilians population areas we say; The USA and Isreal concider hezbollah to be a terrorist group, China, India, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, Malaysia, Thailand, and Indonesia don't. Thats a NPOV encyclopedia, we know who thinks what about hezbollah. We also add facts about their war crimes (see fires 100's of rockets with cluster munitions into civilians population areas) and then the reader can reasonably make up there own mind. Hypnosadist 20:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Right, but undue weight shouldn't be given to the minority (the ones that think hizbollah is terrorist). --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 02:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. And what about my contention that this title doesn't cover the complete phenomenon we are discussing? Alexander.Hainy 10:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV would be mentioning that some countries consider Hezbollah to be a terrorist organization and some don't. Arrow740 22:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The Hezbollah section is wikipedia perfection get an RfC and find that out. It violates NPOV to remove the USA's POV.Hypnosadist 22:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The original contention was this: (1) The use of the word "terrorism" in the title is not NPOV. (2) The title, even if it was NPOV, is ultimately meaningless (even based on the explanations you gave above). (3) The title does not address the subject in a comprehensive manner.

Based on what you said about NPOV: (1) Surely it makes more sense to have a unanimous definition of the phenomenon, then list which groups are considered as terrorists and by who.(2) Your statement can equally be reversed by saying that "some countries consider Hezbollah to be resistance fighters and some don't", which is no more or less a POV than what you have said. As my grandmother would say: "there are six of one and half a dozen of the other" (I really hope half a dozen = 6, otherwise I'll feel very silly!)

Now if we had another title, we could easily mention which groups were considered as terrorist organizations and by who.

The only way we can satisfactorily resolve this POV problem is by adopting a more accurate title that we can both agree on. What would you suggest - based on the objections above - as an alternative to "Islamist Terrorism"?

Alexander.Hainy 00:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

No, i'm bored with the games. If we remove Terrorism from the title then the references relating to terrorism will be deleted by Kirby and his fellow combatants, then Islamist terrorism or some article with a very similar name will be recreated again. This has happened several times and will happen several more times. But the crimes commited will be documented on wikipedia.Hypnosadist 00:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you guys just admit that Hezbollah is the most competent, most dangerous terrorist organization in the world? Arrow740 02:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hypnosadist, I take offense to your identification of me as a "combatant". What exactly am I combating? I am here to improve a Wiki, how about you? And besides, the issue that you raised is not a big deal. If someone recreates an article with "terrorism" or its derivatives in the title, just redirect it. And you seem to be insinuating that I don't want the "crimes" on Wikipedia. That is absolutely false. I do, however, want them appropriately and elegantly classified. Also, your use of the word "crime" to describe some actions is your pov.--Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 03:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Arrow, this has nothing to do with what we admit. That would be original research. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 03:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let's all try to be calm, assume good faith and put our personal feelings aside. This is a sensitive subject for everyone, and both sides have valid points which must be considered. Remember: wikipedia is not a battleground (now lets all take deep breaths and repeat that ten times! *kidding*).

Hypnosadist, even if the title doesn't contain the word terrorism, you have my full assurance that no one will be allowed to remove to references to terrorism in the article, because whatever title we choose there will still be a connection between the subject, the organizations and the accusations of terrorism. This is exactly what I mean about dealing with the subject comprehensively.

If you remember, I made reference to an academic work by Clinton Bennet Muslims and Modernity in which he classifies Hamas, Al-Qaeda and others as "Radical Revisionists" (he is looking at them from the ideological viewpoint). Now I'm not suggesting something so abstract as the title, but my point is that his definition makes their involvement with acts of "terrorism" inseperable from the rest of the subject (just as their ideology is not seperable from their actions either). Further more, his definition takes into account other equally important POV's, which have alot to contribute on the subject, maybe even more. "Terrorism" is the word used by a specific worldview, and as I said its based on political expediency rather than accuracy. Its clear that by using a more precise and academic term that we can have a better article.

As I said before, we are really all concerned with the same thing: accuracy and fairness. Arrow and Hypnosadist are right to be concerned that the accusations made against these organizations will be included. And we all agree that no one has the right to censor verifiable information.

My only motivation in changing this articles is to ensure we have a good, stable article on a very important subject. The title stands in the way of that because: (1) There will always be people objecting to it, sometimes with partisan motivations. (2) It is a politically expedient, rather than an academically sound description of the phenomenon. (3) There is so much that can be added here about the ideology and motivations of these organizations, but "Islamist Terrorism" isn't a satisfactory title.

This is an extremely important article for people trying to understand current affairs in the middle-east. Please lets not allow partisanship and suspicions about each others motivations get in the way of us making this article an authoritative reference on the subject. We all know that if we work together and come to an a mutually acceptable definition, we can not only help other people understand the phenomenon better, we can also help each other understand our fellow wikipedians better.

So...?

You know... it almost feels like we're family! Alexander.Hainy 10:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

*sigh* ok, here's what I'm going to do: I'm going to go through some academic sources on the subject at hand and try and devise a better name next week. I think its very sad no one from either side of the above discussion has suggested anything. (I did write a rant about this, but I'll spare you; unless anyone else puts forward some ideas I'm assuming they aren't bothered about what the article is called) Alexander.Hainy 17:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yawn

Well, round it goes on the title. I don't see much consensus for the change above, but if it's remaining we do need to be clear: "its supporters and practitioners" could give a shit about the semantics of Islamism. They purport to be acting in the name of Islam and the definition ought to say so. Marskell 07:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It's fine to say that they "purport to be acting in the name of Islam", but that's not a valid reason for having an inaccurate title. I don't see why we shouldn't care about details just because "its supporters and practitioners" dont. This is an encyclopedia after all, I doubt we would stop caring about the semantics of "democracy" if a third-world dictatorship applied the word to itself. The argument that they call themselves "Islamic" is justification for us to call them the same (or use the similar, but empty term "Islamist") is not valid, because it ignores the patently incorrect connotations that it has.

So let's be clear: the current title is neither neutral, nor accurate. To be honest, its indefensible. That means it has to go. Alexander.Hainy 11:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, we're not really disagreeing. I just don't know if I have the energy for it. I was literally having this exact debate on this page a year ago... Marskell 16:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ouch, when deja vu attacks! I can sympathise completely :-) I was sure this isn't the first time the topic was raised when I started the discussion. But its not my intention to make any of you guys weary, I promise! (Although, come to think of it, thats a good way to get what you want done; just make everyone else too tired to argue... kidding!)

I think I can understand both sides of this argument. As you and hypnosadist pointed out, it isn't right to try and say that al-Qaeda aren't Muslims, or they don't claim to do what they do in the name of Islam... and I agree... and I'd be the first person to say that trying to obsfucate that is unacceptable. This is, whether Muslims like it or not, a phenomenon in their societies and communities.

But at the same time, we can't give way to any other worldview in how we approach this. "Islamist" or "Islamic Terrorist" are both politically expedient descriptions of what is going on... but they don't really describe it. The fact is that even if al-Qaeda weren't carrying out attacks against American interests which could be classified as terrorism, they would still be al-Qaeda! What I am getting at is that even if we accept the description of them as terrorists, it isn't what defines them. "Islamism" is also not enough, because it isn't accurate (or meaningful) either.

In fact, its difficult to define them because there are also so many differences between them. Hezbollah and al-Qaeda, for example, represent two completely different ends of the spectrum! But what is common to their thought is it's radical nature; which is neither a positive or negative value judgement, but a simple and verifiable observation. So something like "Radical Islam", or "Muslim Radicalism" or even "Islamic Radicalism" is better than what we have now.

But please, don't let all these discussions tire you out :-) that's the last thing I want. Because at the end of the day, while we all have different viewpoints and ideas, we all agree that we're on the same team. In the broader sense, we all share our humanity and the implications that it entails, but in the specific sense, we're also all wikipedians. I know we sometimes take different sides in a discussion, but I really think we should remember that we all want the same thing; which is fairness and honesty in how information is presented here.

Now, if you'll excuse me... I need a kleenex! :-P Alexander.Hainy 16:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

"Hezbollah and al-Qaeda, for example, represent two completely different ends of the spectrum!" Nope both are child killers, Hezbollah just has a better PR department. This is the whole point, they do the same thing for the same reason just Hezbollah kills jews, so they are better because isreali women and children are guilty, this very arguement is terrorism in action. As long a terrorism is the fault of the victims then we will not stop it here on wikipedia or IRL.Hypnosadist 02:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but what about the differences between them? Hezbollah accept to work within a democratic framework and accept a multi-confessional government in Lebanon. Even now, they are allied with a Christian leader, Michelle Aoun. On the other hand, Al-Qaeda would never agree to work within any democratic or inclusive political system (they would label it as "unislamic"). Also, according to Amaal Saad Ghorayeb (a lebanese academic based at the American University in Beirut) their worldviews are different. Al-Qaeda see the world as "dar al harb" (house of war) and "dar al islam" (house of Islam), Hezbollah see it as "dar al adl" (house of justice) and "dar al thulm" (house of oppression). So for Hezbollah, you can have a just non-muslim government and an oppressive muslim government, and they would struggle against the latter but not against the first. Al-Qaeda just consider everywhere to be a legitimate target! On top of that, al-Qaeda probably consider Hezbollah to be infidels anyway (Al-Qaeda are radical Sunnis, Hezbollah are Shi'ites). Hezbollah also only advocate their violence in a specific framework. All of this makes them very different from Al-Qaeda.

I also don't think its productive to get into hair-splitting arguments about "the bad things Hezbollah have done" and "the bad things Israel have done", because all that happens is that people get upset and we reinforce each others biases. Personally, all I am committed to is that we deal with the subject accurately, because only when people understand something properly will they be able to solve it. Everyone's views should be represented; the view that Hezbollah are carrying out illegitimate acts of aggression and the view that Hezbollah are retaliating against aggression. There is no need for us to decide which is right. As you said, we merely present the various pieces of information (we can't call it evidence, because that would imply original research) and people can think whatever they want.

Good to see that we're communicating and understanding each other though. Always a pleasure! :-) Alexander.Hainy 10:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Taliban

This is a case of then and now, the taliban government (now thats a POV statement!) was not a terrorist organisation (lots of other names though). These days because they are getting there ass kicked they use suicide bombings and IED's in civilian areas, the BBC should have loads of links as i've got stuff to do now!Hypnosadist 17:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Taliban is getting their ass kicked??? Do you know anything about what's going on in Afghanistan right now? Please see [51]. Thanks --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 02:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep they have had taken thousands of casualties as opposed the less than 50 that the british have taken in helmund. Thats why they are hideing behind womens skirts like real mujhadin. We have changed tactics to reduce afgan civilian casualties while the taliban have changed tactics to maximise civi casualties.Hypnosadist 21:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

And they were just as likely to "terrorize" the population in the good old days. I still wouldn't describe them as a terrorist organization though. --Lee Hunter 02:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this raises an important discussion however; are members of a government which was disposed considered terrorists? That is, is everyone who worked in the Taliban government now considered a terrorist (which means that even people who haven't committed any violence/threat of violence would be considered terrorists), or are only the people who commit the violence/threat of violence considered terrorists (which would mean that Taliban is not a terrorist organization, but some of its members are terrorist)? Or some third option I can't think of? Thanks. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 03:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The taliban as a group (a unified military command structure) are War Criminals not terrorists. There are Terrorists operating in Afganistan today and killing afgan civi's today, but they don't carry ID saying i'm a member of Al Quida/taliban/iranian special forces. But the taliban can be linked to lots of civilian deaths, drug dealing and many other crimes.Hypnosadist 02:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

But "lots of civilian deaths, drug dealing, and many other crimes" is not by itself qualification of the title "war criminal". A war criminal means a person who violates the rules and regulations of modern warfare. Since the United States government never formally declared a war on the Taliban government, the actions of the Taliban cannot be considered war crimes. They can instead be described as "human rights violations".--Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 03:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that the argument you are using was also used by some to justify what would otherwise be war crime violations on the part of the U.S. as well in regard to numerous established conventions concerning targeting, civilian treatment, treatment and protection of journalists, etc. The street is two-way. --Strothra 05:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly Strothra.Hypnosadist 22:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

??? The United States hasn't committed any war crimes. They have committed human rights violations. There was no formal declaration of war, other than the bullshit meaningless phrase "war on terrorism". (Would breaches of conduct during the "war on drugs" be considered war crimes?) Also, your argument seems to assume that I would find it objectionable that some of the United States' actions wouldn't be considered war crimes. Why would you think that? I'm here to write a Wikipedia article, not masturbate on a soapbox.--Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 08:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

That does not sound fun. On a side note, if anyone cares, Russia and Kazakhstan have both designated the Taliban a terrorist organization. KazakhPol 00:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a terrorist organization. Doesn't the UN recognize the Afghan government, and isn't the Taliban waging a campaign of terror to try to overthrow it? Arrow740 01:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

As a bizzar aside due to the fact that the "war on drugs" is a police action they can violate many rules of war such as the use of hollow point rounds.Hypnosadist 09:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

You know, I'm tempted to say we wouldn't have this problem if the title of the article didn't include "terrorism". Hezbollah, the Taliban etc. could be included and and simply have a line stating "...is considered a terrorist organization by such and such", and so I did (say it I mean)!

Although I have to admit that I'm feeling deeply cynical these days, I feel like governments and media outlets are pathologically deceitful... they lie even when they tell the truth, as opposed to Tony Montana who tells the truth even when he lies... now say hello to my little friend! :-D Alexander.Hainy 10:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Kidnappings and executions

I've removed the entire kidnapping and execution section as it seems primarily based on events in Iraq. In other words, a situation where an insurgency is fighting an occupying army doesn't qualify as terrorism. The way it was written also showed a perverse Western bias by listing a handful of white folks who got killed and not mentioning the more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians who have died because of the violence. --Lee Hunter 15:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Then put in the information about the Iraqi's killed for not being the right type of muslim. PS You can have terrorism even though there is an insurgency.Hypnosadist 00:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

After reverting Lee i find the info contains iraqi's, korean's, japanise and a irish/iraqi aid worker but i will find more to add.Hypnosadist 00:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ive added some small bits on the kidnapping of iraqi's, please feel free to add more Lee.Hypnosadist 00:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Origional Research

Please see the part of WP:NOR which prohibits "analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor" --Strothra 02:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I used this source: [52] Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar clearly mentions all these verses and many more within this letter. I don't know how this can be categorized as origional research when there is a source for it. And there are plenty of other sources for the letter as well.--Sefringle 02:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't be original research if you were putting the verses into an article about verses of the Quran and were not connecting them to an argument. However, you are trying to use the verses to support an origional argument making it origional research. --Strothra 03:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I am putting the verses in a section entitled "Interpritations in the quran." It only makes sense that we mention verses in the quran related to terrorism in a section entitled "interpritations in the quran." Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar wrote this justification using quranic verses to explain how his terrorist attack in the name of islam is islamic. This arguement is not origional, it has been presented numerous times by numerous people both in books and online including [53], [54], [55],[56], [57], [58] and in many of the following books and documentaries.--Sefringle 03:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they're making no sense. It's not original. Arrow740 05:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not OR we are quoting someone, we say in proper wikipedia form "X says these specific quranic ayats inspired me to do terrorism." and then we list (either with numbers or the whole quote) those Ayats.Hypnosadist 07:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just removed these edits as per WP:NPOV#Undue weight. The policy states the following:

Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all...We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views....To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute.
None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them. Wikipedia is not paper. But even on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it should not be represented as the truth.
From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the mailing list:
- If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 14:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Its not a minority view!Hypnosadist 20:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

A reliable source saying that, Hypno? --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 04:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I already explained that above, mentioning many.--Sefringle 05:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

So why do we have an OR tag? If its Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar's quotes these are not OR as they are his research! If it is not then what is the OR?Hypnosadist 16:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm gusesing it is some of the other uncited material as well.--Sefringle 07:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

New article

I've started this article 2007 Plot to Behead a British Muslim Soldier, could editors please pop by and make it better. Hypnosadist 17:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Stop revert warring

Please stop revert warring. If you have any suggestions to improve the article, discuss them on this talk page. But please do not revert each other every 15 minutes. If the edit war continues, this article will be protected. A ecis^Brievenbus 11:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The revert warring will not stop as very few people here are willing to compromise, and as for editing for the ememy, thats none existant here in the WOT (Wiki On Terror).Hypnosadist 15:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)