Talk:Islam and war

Holy wars?
The article is opposing Islam. The only holy wars are the ones that were fought in the life of Muhammad. And I find linking Jihad to Nazi Germany very offensive. How many European christian leaders and citizens have visited and worked with Nazi Germany?? You don't criticize Christianity for that do you. Many evidences of false logic in this article. --Obay bol (talk) 13:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that such clashes and single killings are wars. Who thinks opposite? - Sayfulhaqq (talk) 20:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I would hardly call these clashes - they are too one-sided. Single killings? Perhaps 'history of jihad' is better or better still 'Christians and Jews in the History of Jihad'. Shoshiwas (talk) 18:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

This article is heavily opposed to Islam and far from being objective. 88.250.161.174 (talk) 01:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)ko

What is this? I don't think that the writers of this article really know what is jihad. I'm afraid it's sole aim is inflaming islamophy. As a muslim what should I do, writing a new article named 'War and XYZ religion' and pouring in it all the subjective opinions of my own? No that's not the way wikipedia offers. At least as I understood. Rugyu (talk) 09:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

What is this article about?
What is this article about? Is it supposed to be history of jihad? If so, then I propose we move it to such.VR talk  12:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And cleaned up too. Right now it appears a dumping ground for every conflict the Muslims have ever been in.VR talk  12:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Problematic in many ways. I'm alerting WikiProject Military History and WikiProject Islam. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Christianity and war
Why no article with this subject?? There have been many wars of religion in europe and either a page should be created about that or this page should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.173.56 (talk) 11:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * for example world wars I & II.--Severino (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree there should be an article on Christianity and warfare, as there is also one on Judaism and warfare. Christianity and violence exists, but it is not sufficient to cover things like Just war theory in depth.--Pharos (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Greek genocide
This section is both factually incorrect and also not written in a NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxr033 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

This whole article needs work
I'm just reading it and it's terrible. Riddled with factual inaccuracies. it's heavily biased and there's no real attempt to portray a NPOV. It completely ignores the contexts in which these incidents and wars took place.

It's very easy in hindsight to ascribe every war in history between Muslims and non-Muslims in the context of 'holy war' and 'jihad', but in reality there were a multitude of very complex factors that led to these events, like any war. The lack of space, the drive for resources, the quest for power, all sorts of internal problems. Lumping every conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims in one "Islam + war" article in just plain wrong. I think for many contributors it's a subversive attempt to portray the adherents to the religion of Islam as bloodthirsty savages intent on conquest and subjugation. Can someone with a better grasp of history and neutral language tidy this article up? I can just picture a future Breivik reading this and seething.Oxr033 (talk) 22:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

nominated for deletion
I have nominated this article for deletion because I think it's entire premise is flawed. It is impossible to ascertain to what extent and to what degree religion played a role in all these conflicts of the last 1300 years. I may as well write an article called "Male Height and Rape", or "Baldness and Murder". I'm pretty sure I could find some statistical correlation if I looked hard enough and ignored things that didn't chime with my view. EVEN if you found some historical text stating religious motivation was the primary purpose of this conflict, nobody really knows for certain if it was, as all of these sources are written in English and from a Christian western perspective and so how relevant is it to even mention it?Oxr033 (talk) 23:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

YES I forward the nomination.

I too strongly accept the above stated view. Apart from being a western perspective, this article is biased for sure. This is one of those organisations which is spreading islamophobia and complete wrong in-formations about Islam. As mentioned earlier in this Wikipedia the whole world knows about the crusades and the many other wars waged by Christianity or many other religions of the world. It seems that the person who has started this Wikipedia has no knowledge about the European history, world history.

I would like to bring it to the notice that ARAB language does not refer only to muslims, kindly know the world better ... there are arab christians and arab jews in the world. When the Quran was revealed to the Propephet, the people living in mecca and around mecca were non muslims and their language was arabic. The jews, the pagans who were living in and around mecca were speaking arabic.

NO, I believe we need this article.

I came here, looking for the information in this article, and even information that's missing from it. Downstrike (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

No war with Europe before the Crusades ?
What about the muslim invasion of France stopped by Charles Martel at Poitiers in 732, which was to bring 68 years later Charlemagne to the throne ? 212.198.148.180 (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

We need some explanation of what the Islamic state had seized BEFORE the article tells us, "The European crusaders re-conquered much of the territory seized by the Islamic state" Downstrike (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

POV tag
The sourcing of this article is extremely poor quality. Many of the references used are not historical scholars but anti-Islam polemicists. My initial reaction on reading this mess was to suggest deletion, but I am cognisant of WP:UNRS, WP:DINC and WP:RUBBISH.

As examples of what I am referring to, this article (selectively) summarises many events which are covered elsewhere in wikipedia. Events I know a little about such as Farhud, 1936–39 Arab revolt in Palestine, 1920 Nebi Musa riots, 1834 looting of Safed and 1660 destruction of Safed have articles which are sourced with scholarly references and provide a relatively balanced view of the context and drivers of these events. However their summaries in this article are little more than naked anti-Islamic hysteria, with scant regard for the appropriate context. I am sure this applies to many of the other events in this article which I am less qualified to comment on.

Oncenawhile (talk) 08:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)


 * This is one of the articles on wikipedia which have the purpose to serve as propaganda and for agitation. There is no scientific justification for this lemma and this content, only a political one. It starts with a definition of "jihad" and lists all acts of violence in which muslims have been involved. In many of these wars "jihad" or religion didn't play a role. It is malicious to sum up both the algerian fight for independence from france and the civil war of the islamists in the 1990s under "islam and war" and introduce it as "jihad". we could create an article which deals with muslims as victims of violence and most the listed wars, for example the algerian civil war, would fall into this category. that would be as legitimate as this article. or we could write about the kidnapping of jewish yemenite children by zionist authorities and sum it up with atrocities against palestinians under "jewish violence". The section about the crusades at the beginning and even more the section about national socialism are particularly biased and constitute kind of falsification of history.--Severino (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion
Is Pacifism in Islam a POV fork of this article and they should be merged? We already had a discussion about this here, but I think that this is a better place to discuss it due the subject of the articles. Rupert Loup (talk) 00:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please prove that it is a POV fork. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * By looking at this (Islam and war) article, I'd rather suggest it for deletion as a pointless collection of some of huge numbers of wars which involve Islamic world. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Common sense, pacifism is the opposition to war and violence. They share the same subject but with two point of view and it's problematic that there are no attempts to balance them. Rupert Loup (talk) 04:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * "Share the same subject" - Irrelevant. They are separate subjects in their own. We don't merge articles Pacifism and War, do we? Staszek Lem (talk) 00:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This article (Islam and war) is a mess right now. POV and WP:COATRACK issues throughout. Meanwhile, there's essentially no overlap with the existing content on Pacifism in Islam. Even if I&W were fixed, pacifism differs from opposition to particular wars. --Carwil (talk) 05:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Carwil The two articles are a mess, this at least is better sourced, but the two have a lot of incomplete references. "Pacifism in Islam" mentions specific groups that surge in specific regions and the content in "Islam and war" is divided in regions, so I think it will be easy to merge. The Quran section is more appropriate to Quran and violence, however there should be a small summary of that article if it deemed necessary. I Think that with a small summary of Islamic military jurisprudence, Jihad and Muslim conquests, and get rid of the "Early instances" section, will be enough to start. Also WP:COATRAK is a essay. Rupert Loup (talk) 18:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no overlap here. Really, just none. Even if we add Islamic military jurisprudence, that's not pacifist either. So Pacifism in Islam is its own thing. Put it in "see also" and be done with the connection.
 * I will get rid of "early instances" though.--Carwil (talk) 04:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I do see a distinct need to merge this article to the Islam and violence article (if there's anything of particular merit worth retaining from this article). I think that'd be a good start. How such a merge evolves will provide a better context as to whether a split is desirable or not. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 08:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Carwil. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Carwil. This article is rather confused, and Islam and violence covers the topic better, if imperfectly.  I actually came to this page looking for something on the military history of the Islamic world, and we're missing a cohesive article on that too.--Pharos (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment What is the article meant to be? If a disussion of the 'philosophical' attitude to war, then merge with pacifism makes sense, if simply an itemising of Islam's involvement in war, then a merge is not apt. I can't make out what the article IS about, but it does seem to have major issues. Pincrete (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Islam and war. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://chamunesco.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=110:the-raja-praong-ritual-a-memory-of-the-sea-in-cham-malay-relations&catid=45:van-hoa&Itemid=120

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Islam and war. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090411165901/http://www2.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/opinion/story.html?id=1db342f6-7872-4c39-8410-81ad3a916908&k=25970 to http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/opinion/story.html?id=1db342f6-7872-4c39-8410-81ad3a916908&k=25970

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Axis Europe
What does the section Islam_and_war have to do with Islam? What is the scope of this article anyway? To list every instance of Muslims being involved in a war? This article also seems to overlap with Islam and violence. In case of Christianity and war, that article was merged with Christianity and violence. VR talk  19:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * For me it is one interesting part about history of Axis powers and about Islam, also seems sourced well. And about "merge" there is also one article what is about Judaism and warfare so I don't see any problem about Islam and war.93.86.89.163 (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you provide some quotes from the sources that would indicate that sources are talking about the Islamic religion as opposed to only mentioning Muslims? I don't think it should be included based on the sole fact that Muslims participated in the war. If that was the threshold, we'd have to include pretty much every war of the last 500 years here. For example, Muslims served in the American-Canadian war, American Civil war etc.
 * The problem with "Islam and war" is that we already have two other articles on that topic: Jihad and Islamic military jurisprudence. What falls under the scope of this article that can't be covered in the other two?VR talk  09:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see any problem, if some scholar or islamic religious figure or authority or leader in some sourced referenced content gave importance to some war what was waged it can be included, even when just some individuals who recognised themself as muslims are participating. Jihad is specific content and specific number of works are about it, and about islamic jurisprudence that is regulations, views, legitimacy of war, offensive and defensive conflict, treatment of enemies etc etc. In islam it is pretty well described and it is interest of many scholars. In general more content, more articles, it is better for Wikipedia. Lets see, there is many articles about many religions what going about further reading and have "stand alone" pages here at Wikipedia. I gave that example about Judaism and warfare. Lets say also exitance of article named "Christianity and violence" does not mean to there should not be "Christian terrorism" or "the Bible and violence" etc stand alone articles, and that articles you can check and you can see them and you can see to they are separated articles. 93.86.89.163 (talk) 09:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

What is this article about?
5 years ago asked "what is the article meant to be?" I'm wondering the same thing. Should it be about the Military history of the Muslim world (like suggested)? Otherwise we might be better of redirecting this to Islam and violence.VR talk 21:10, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I wasn't the first to ask that question. Pincrete (talk) 21:18, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Haha, I totally forgot. The fact that I asked that question nearly a decade ago and asking it again is indicative of the problematic scope of this article. If it is about Islamic views on war, then this is already covered at Jihad and Islamic military jurisprudence. If it is about ever war Muslims have ever fought in, that might be an arbitrarily broad topic. So what do you think we should do ? Move request to Military history of the Muslim world? AfD as an arbitrary topic?VR talk 00:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)