Talk:Islamic terrorism/Archive 6

Patience
While some have been offended by this page, it is a very informative article, despite the holes. In time, these holes will be filled. Please be patient and helpful.

Concerning "Tactics"
I would like to see the militant group or any other anti political group in the middle east to stop killing other people in the world and stop the suicide bombing killing other for no reason at all and the world don't like to see war we want to see world peace killing other people for no reason at all is wrong and stop the terrorism arms attack and the religious people have their own believes and they have the right to what they believe in without killing other people this why god put us on this earth to hate other people for what they believe in I would like to see these political anti group in the middle east to stop killing other in this world of our and we don't want to see wars in the middle east and we want to stop war is not the answer peace talks is the answer and peace in the world killing is wrong and stop the terrorism in the world —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.94.83 (talk) 04:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that we should shy away from the "motives" surrounding each tactic and instead concentrate on defining and giving examples of each tactic instead. I've provided a source that substantiates bombing as the "most popular" method of terrorism in general, however it does not separate terrorist acts by religious or political motivations. I'd also like to add "armed attack" (a la the Beltway_sniper_attacks) as a terrorist tactic. JBHughes 23:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Your source says bombings are "most popular", not suicide bombings (which it states are increasingly popular, but account for less than 10% of attacks). The sentence you added it to is discussing suicide bombings. I'm going to rename this section, as it is only discussing suicide bombings and not generic bombings. — George [ talk  ] 01:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, there is one sentence that discusses other bombings, so I'm leaving the title alone for now. — George [ talk  ] 01:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I must have misread the initial statement, then. The title of the section is misleading anyway and in truth there really should be a section devoted to suicide bombings as, arguably, the most sensationalized form of terrorist attack. Bombings, while similar in ends alone, are really completely different as they have nothing to do with the self martyrdom psychology that is involved with suicide bombing.JBHughes 02:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. If there was enough information about bombings other than suicide bombings I would definitely break it up, but I don't want to end up with a one sentence section on non-suicide bombings. If this section gets longer then we should definitely break it up. — George [ talk  ] 03:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

We need new pages and categories for Islamic Terror attacks
There should be a page that lists Islamic Terrorist attacks. At the least, a category should also be made for "Attacks by Islamic Militants". I realized this when I came across Air France Flight 8969 and I was surprised that there was no easy way of quickly seeing that this was an attack by Islamic Terrorists. Any constructive suggestions? --Matt57 14:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Hezbollah classified as "Islamist"?
Can someone please add a source citing Hezbollah as an Islamist terrorist organization, rather than just a terrorist organization? I've seen it referred to as an Islamic terrorist organization before, but I don't recall seeing it referred to as Islamist. Thanks. — George Saliba[ talk ] 23:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Has anyone been able to find such a source by chance? If nobody can find such a source I would question the inclusion of Hezbollah in this article. — George Saliba[ talk ] 08:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * From the first paragraph of Wikipedia's Hezbollah article:


 * "Hezbollah (Arabic: حزب الله‎ ḥizbu-llāh, meaning 'party of God') is a Shi'a Islamic political and paramilitary organization based in Lebanon. It follows a distinct version of Islamic Shi'a ideology developed by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, leader of the Islamic Revolution in Iran."


 * Therefore, if they're a terrorist group at all, they're obviously an Islamist-centered one. The only real debate is if they are a terror group. --Hiddekel 16:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks like the Islamism article has ben re-written. It used to define Islamist as those who were trying to spread Islam and push Islamic governments on others, but as it no longer does the point regarding Hezbollah is likely moot. — George Saliba[ talk ] 17:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggesting a Merge of Religious conversion and terrorism into Islamist terrorism
The religious conversion entry has nothing to do with "religion" generically. However, it also has nothing to do with "conversion" except circumstantially. That is, there is no substantive connection between "conversion" to religion, or Islam specifically, and terrorism. The entry is simply about converts to Islam who have become militant. The current entry title is therefore fallacious and moving it, for instance to something like Conversion to Islam and terrorism would not add anything substantive. It would simply be another space in which to provide information about Islamist terrorism (granted through a very negligible aspect of such terrorism--recent converts to Islam). Therefore I suggest the information in Religious conversion and terrorism merge into this entry, Islamist terrorism. Please consider the merits of this merge because the other option I am entertaining is an AfD on the conversion entry.PelleSmith 14:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems to me like the Religious conversion and terrorism article should just be deleted. Maybe add a one-liner to this article stating that some Islamist terrorists were converts, but even though I don't really see the point, or how the information in that article is encyclopedic. — George Saliba[ talk ] 01:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have nominated the entry in question for AfD given the lack of interest in this merge. Follow this link to engage the discussion: Articles for deletion/Religious conversion and terrorism.PelleSmith 12:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * PelleSmith has deleted a number of significant citations from the articleReligious conversion and terrorism, at the same time nominating it for deletion. That is unethical.--ISKapoor 17:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The deleted references from the article (including a a detailed list) show that 9% of the terrorists are converts. PelleSmith has also taken the liberty to remove some names from the list of suspects. The list was:


 * Dhiren Barot ,
 * Adam Gadahn, ,
 * David Hicks,
 * Muriel Degauque,
 * Richard Reid,
 * Bob Denard,
 * Aukai Collins
 * some of the The Portland Seven.
 * Derrick Shareef
 * Daniel Maldonado


 * --ISKapoor 17:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I made each of those edits with detailed edit summaries that speak for themselves, however this talk page is clearly not the forum to discuss them. Please come see for yourselves if you wish since I do not recommend taking ISKapoor's word for it regarding my behavior or intentions.  Cheers.PelleSmith 20:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion
This article should be deleted for the reason that terorism can't be associtaed with any relegion.What will you call a action of some Hindu extermist or some jewsish extermist?.You can't the chrisation extermism as Christian terroism.I have mention the the three of the larrgest religions of the world.SUCH ARTICLES SHOULD BE DELETED WHCIH MAY BE A SOURCE AGAINST SOMEBODY OR SOMEONE.User talk:Yousaf465
 * Osama Bin Laden and every other muslim terrorist has associated Islam with terrorism. There is a clear connection between Islam and terrorism. Islamic terrorism is a very notable concept in the media, and is widely supported by many muslims. Just because it goes against your personal religous beliefs is no reason to delete it, and it is very POV to do so.--Sefringle 06:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There are numerous Islamic leaders in several countries advocating the use of terrorism, and the majority the major terrorism events for the last 50 years have been conducted by Muslims - largely in or for the Palestinian conflict.  Were it not for Muslim terrorists, terrorism in the modern world would be hardly more than a police problem in certain individual nations. Islamic terrorism is unique to Islam as a major world religion since no other major religion advocates it - there are no Hindu and Christian leaders calling for terrorism.  BTW, Judaism is NOT one of the largest religions of the world, it is a tiny sect whose numbers are relatively speaking, quite small.Jasoncward 01:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Jason, you have to understand the difference between Islamic and Islamist before you edit. You are mixing up stuff out there. -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  01:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That is why it should be moved to Islamic terrorism.--Sefringle 03:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure why this article exists as a separate article. If most terrorism is Islamic or Islamist, then it might as well be merged into the main Terrorism article, with some note that a certain percentage of terrorist acts are Islamic or Islamist in nature. Furthermore, despite being an article titled Islamist, this article does an atrocious job of distinguishing between Islamic and Islamist entities. It incorrectly includes both in its body. — George Saliba [ talk  ] 06:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It includes both of course because of the POV pushing and indeed we are still pushing further to make it Islamic indeed. All organizations and people of Muslim backgrounds designated as terrorists are ISLAMISTS. You got to specify and academics do specify but bloggers never! They do rant instead. -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  07:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. Some terrorists act in the name of Islam, but their goal may not exactly be to spread Islam, which is islamism. Take Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar for example. His goal in terrorism was not to spread Islam, but rather "To punish the government of the United States for their actions around the world." It would be incorrect to call him an Islamist terrorist, but he certianly is an islamic terrorist.--Sefringle 01:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * FayssalF, I am not mixing up the difference between Islamic and Islamist terrorism, because there is no difference - at least insofar as this article and Wikipedia are concerned. Note that both Islamic and Islamist lead to the same definition.   If you would like to start a new article trying to define a differnce between the two, great, but otherwise your attempts to apologize for terrorism by suggesting it is attributable to academic definitions of Islamic or Islamist (that only you define) unnecessarily complicates the matter.  Islamist = Islamic in this article, see line the first line.
 * This is grossly inaccurate. On Wikipedia, Islamic redirects to Islam, while Islamist redirects to Islamism – two very different concepts; two very different articles. additionally, Wiktionary destinguishes between the two: Islamic here, and Islamist here. This article does indeed blur the lines between the two, but that is only due to this articles short-comings from being poorly editted and reviewed. — George Saliba [ talk  ] 03:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * George, I now see that ISLAMIC and ISLAMIST do redirect to two definitions. However, I wonder if these definitions are either artificial POVs by certain Wikipedians, or merely clever definitions used by a few writers and not accepted in mainstream sources.  Merriam Webster's first definition of Islamist states it is equivalent to Islamic - a follower of Islam.  A review usually shows the two terms are in fact interchangeable, as in respected sources the terms seem to be used alternatively to mean the same thing, as here:


 * http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3438276.html


 * In order to resolve the blurring that occurs in the article I propose we revert to your original suggestion and fold back these articles into subsets of terrorism. Alternatively, two new articles could be created: one about Islamic terrorism and one about Islamist terrorism.  Or, a primary article on Islamic terrorism could exist, with Islamist terrorism a subset of the main article.  Instead of trying to define what these terms are ourselves, as is currently the case in this article, I suggest defining the terms by definitions found in respected published sources.  For instance this source:


 * http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/target/etc/modern.html


 * ...defines Islamic Terrorism as any terrorism which is motivated, at least in part, by the religious beliefs (or interpretations) of Islam. This would include Islamist terrorism, as I understand it, which is terrorism based on the belief that Islam commands certain changes in non-complying governments.  Although most sources seem to agree on the wide definition of Islamic terrorism; I have found Islamist terrorism defined nowhere and suggest it can not appear in Wikipedia until it is defined by trusted sources elsewhere - and cited as such.--Jasoncward 05:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

(Reducing indentation for readability)

Let's start by trying to establish some working definitions. These are my definitions, paraphrase from others I've read:


 * Islamic – A follower of Islam; of or related to Islam. Synonymous with "Muslim".
 * Islamist – A follower of fundamentalist Islam; of or related to using Islamic teaching to form a political ideology. Synonymous with "fundamentalist Muslim" or "radical Islam".
 * Islamic Terrorist – A follower of Islam who commits an act of terrorism.
 * Islamist Terrorist – A follower of fundamentalist Islam who commits an act of terrorism, in order to further an Islamic political ideology. (See: Sharia)

I understand that some groups use the terms interchangeably, but doing so is sometimes contentious, and I believe that these are the most precise distinctions when you get down to it. Also, I would prefer going with Wiktionary's defintions (as they have a similar vetting process to Wikipedia). In short, Islamists are the fundamentalist subset of the Islamic people, and Islamist Terrorism is the subset of Islamic Terrorism that is meant to further a political ideology. For instance, a Palestinian suicide bomber who is Muslim would be considered to be Islamic by everyone, and may be considered by some to be an Islamic terrorist, but he would not be an Islamist terrorist, unless he an Islamist who was trying to put forward a political ideology (See: Sharia). Do these definitions make sense? — George Saliba [ talk  ] 08:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that makes a lot of sense. Maybe you should propose moving it back to Islamic.--Sefringle 19:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think there are two options:
 * Change the current articles title to Islamic terrorism, and include all terrorist acts committed by Muslims.
 * Leave the title Islamist terrorism, but move any terrorism that is Islamic but not Islamist to the main Terrorism article.
 * I prefer the second. While it is often harder to determine intention, I think it's much more controversial to have the article broken down by religion. For instance, the article Christian terrorism deals with terrorism "carried out in the name of furthering Christian goals or teachings" – not terrorism carried out by anyone who is Christian. It would be discriminatory of us to pick and choose, having some of these articles broken down by religion, and others by intent. — George Saliba [ talk  ] 23:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesnt work like that when it comes it islam. In islam, god, or Allah, wrote the Qu'ran thru the body of Muhammed and if you neglect anything in the Qu'ran you are not a muslim, this makes it impossible to a apply the term "fundamentalist" on any follower of islam.

You've got all the terminology wrong or confused.
 * Islamic – Of or related to Islam; NOT synonymous with "Muslim" because all that Muslims do isn't Islamic.
 * Islamist – an "Islamist" is NOT a fundamentalist Muslim because his focus is mainly on the political aspects of Islam which, although important, are a part of the "details" or "peripherals" of Islam (rather than "core" or "fundamentals"). The fundamentals of Islam are related to the beliefs. A fundamentalist Muslim, therefore, is a Muslim concerned mainly (though not exclusively) with the beliefs. The Wahhabi movement, is therefore, an example of a truely fundamentalist movement. And the various Islamist groups today, which concern with the peripherals are not fundamentalist groups. You may rush to ask - aren't these groups Wahhabi? I've given the answer in the next section.
 * Islamic Terrorist – There is no such thing as an Islamic terrorist because there in no "Islamic" terrorism. Although Jihad - Islamic War is recognised in Islam, terrorism (defined as using violence against the general civilian population in order to terrorize them into submission) is considered Haraam or "Forbidden" as using military action against any one unarmed (along with women, children, oldmen, priests/monks etc.) is prohibited in Islamic warfare.
 * Islamist Terrorist – "A follower of fundamentalist Islam who commits an act of terrorism, in order to further an Islamic political ideology. (See: Sharia)" - wrong definition as your definitions of fundamentalist is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xe Cahzytr Ryz (talk • contribs) 14:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Xe Cahzytr Ryz as there is no such thing as 'Islamic terrorism'. Terrorism itself is against Islam. And any teaching of Islam that promotes terrorism is a distortion of Islam. There has to be a clear distinction between Jihad (which is permitted in Islam and encouraged) and terrorism (which is forbidden). Killing innocent people is terrorism not Jihad. Bladead (talk) 14:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Wahhabism
Something should be said regarding Wahhabism in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.98.127.45 (talk) 23:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Check "Criticism of Islamic terrorist ideology". I've mention the position of Salafi/Wahhabi scholars with regards to these activities. Just because you hear a lot about terrorism being associated with Wahhabism in media, doesn't mean it's true. Actually, most of these Islamist groups are associated with Qutbism. To help you understand the relation, when I mention Qutbism, think of "political revival" and when I mention Wahhabism, think of puritanism in terms of beliefs. The Wahhabi "movement" actually dealt with the "cleaning up" of the belief system of Muslims which, by his time, had been corrupted by import of foreign ideas (like Hindu Pantheism into Sufism and Greek Logic into Kalam) and return the beliefs of the Muslims to the original beliefs of Islam - those of the Companions of Muhammad (precisely, what they call, the pious predecessors). On the other hand, Qutbism is purely political in it's outlook. It's central aim is "The reconstitution of the Islamic Society/Civilization" as against other civilizations (called Jahiliyyah or Jahili civilizations). Qutb performed the Takfir of all Muslims (considering them to be apostate) based solely on the observation that their social structure (their civilization) was different from the one in Medina under Muhammad. He also declared all Muslim rulers as Kafirs for not establishing the Islamic society - this was repeated by Osama bin Laden with the king of Saudi Arabia. On the other hand, Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab rarely, if ever, issued a takfir and that too on the basis of established, accepted principles considering only the beliefs of people. Also, Salafi scholars support the Saudi Government. Qutb sanctioned the rebellion against a Muslim ruler on basis of his impiety or if he doesn't establish a muslim society (why Islamists don't hesitate to rebel). Salafi/Wahhabi scholars on the other hand, forbid rebellion or even speaking ill or resrespectfully of the Muslim ruler (lest disorder or disturbance erupts) unless it is clear that he is a Kafir (legally). They also prescribe ultra-strict obedience under all circumstances except if ordered to do something against the Qur'an or the teachings of Muhammad in which case, only disobedience is prescribed. Qutb claimed that a woman who wears western clothes designed by some designer, then she is a Mushrik who worships the designer. On the other hand, Salafi/Wahhabi scholars consider her a Mushrik only if she thinks it's not a sin to do so, knowing that violation of Hijab is a sin. Qutb claims that Islam recognizes freedom of religion while Salafi/Wahhabi scholars consider it to be Kufr. Since Qutb's time, Salafi/Wahhabi scholars have continued to write academic, formal refutations of the Qutbist ideology.--Xe Cahzytr Ryz (talk) 14:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Xe Cahzytr Ryz as there is no such thing as 'Islamic terrorism'. Terrorism itself is against Islam. And any teaching of Islam that promotes terrorism is a distortion of Islam. There has to be a clear distinction between Jihad (which is permitted in Islam and encouraged) and terrorism (which is forbidden). Killing innocent people is terrorism not Jihad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bladead (talk • contribs) 13:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

External links section
The external links section to this page is atrocious. It looks like some hideous compromise between two warring POV factions. I've deleted a majority of the links because they either lead to blog/editorials, to irrelevant materials, or lead to very specific relevant topics that should be referenced correctly in the text and not linked to in external links. Please see my edit summaries if you are reviewing my deletions. Cheers.PelleSmith 03:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Some of the links are also simply dead.PelleSmith 03:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The External links section is not a place to compromise POVs. One right wing "terrorism expert"  vs. Noam Chomsky, one inconsequential video of people claiming to believe in Muslim extremism  vs. some website with links to Muslims decrying terrorism ... come on.  By all means disregard my advice and go back to the good old days of POV compromise, but those links just point to the very reason why entries like this will never be trusted as reliable sources of information.PelleSmith 03:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, so you have left now only one External link. That little guy is lonely now, he said if his friends were shot down, he wants to be shot down too. Seriously - why did you leave that link? How will you find a link on this topic that is completely NPOV? You'll find everything is either for or against, as it the case with most Islam topics. Why shouldnt people be able to read different points of view of this issue? You started with deleting my link which is very relevant to this article, as the first line here says: "Islamist terrorism is terrorism done to further Islam as believed by its supporters and practitioners" - is that line POV? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 05:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You just made an argument for not having these types of entries at all. Cheers to that.   That link was the only one providing relevant information about a known Islamist terrorist group -- al-Qaeda.  The rest of the links were tenuously related to the subject matter at hand or were editorials which are in essence the same as blogs--narrow POVs.  Your link, for instance, was not about terrorism but about "violence" and homicide.  You say that these entries are inherently POV ... that's complete nonsense.  There are politicized factions surrounding any politicized issue, but that doesn't mean there aren't neutral ways of portraying such issues.  Take a good look at the External Links section to Abortion for instance.  Do you see editorials railing against abortion or advocating for it?  Do you see diatribes about how anti-abortionists are the real criminals?  Do you see video footage of supposed abortion activists claiming that the murder is justified?  No you don't, you see links to information about abortion and abortion related issues.  So what's the difference here?  Are they wrong to have an informative and neutral External Links section? PelleSmith 12:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are pro and anti-abortion links. What do you mean? Second, terrorism = violence and homicide. Whats the difference? Do you think "Islamic-awareness.org" should be removed from the EL section of Islam? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes and that external links section is 100% clear in categorizing the links as non-neutral and/or blatantly ideological when they are. Also, the abortion debate is a well known and well worn POV issue.  People understand that there are "two (or more) sides" to the issue.  In fact these two sides, pro-life and pro-choice have become an integral part of "abortion" in American discourse.  Because of this, having those links in the External links sections with the appropriate labels becomes informative to the knowledge consuming public because they now understand even better what ideological position each group is pushing.  If you want to put those links back under the headings "Pro-Islamic" and "Anti-Islamic" then by all means go ahead ... you'll be doing my work for me and proving exactly the point I'm trying so desperately to bring out here.  Is that what you want?PelleSmith 03:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In regards to your point about terrorism you are completely wrong. We don't call a garden variety murderer a terrorist nor do we call the state of Texas (for example) a terrorist organization just because they perform death on others.PelleSmith 03:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Islam is also a well known POV issue. So you're saying if we divide the sections into the various POV's, then its ok? I'm going to go with the nice Abortion example you gave. Yes. Could you put back the links and divide them into the POV headings like abortion? Also, you should go around in all Islam articles and you'll see they're all filled with links that you would have deleted, because they either speak for the issue or against - like abortion.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 11:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Islam is not a "well known POV issue". Islam is not an "issue", Islam is a religion.  Abortion is a specific action performed by human beings on human beings.  As such it can be and is regulated by the state through law. The pro and anti stances have relevance specifically because of that fact--because lobbying the government and pressuring politicians may alter the way in which the state regulates abortion, how it creates and enacts abortion related policies. They also exist as well established and easily referenced cultural institutions because of this. Islam on the other hand is not "a specific action", but a complex of beliefs and practices that varies historically and cross-culturally. Clearly there are people who are against Islam, and those who are for Islam.  However, that discourse is not well known at all, and it has very little cultural cache.  Very few non-Muslims would claim to be either for or against Islam, but would say that Islam is a religion about which they have no such opinion.  People may be against terrorism or extremism of any kind, but they are intelligent enough to understand that this is what they are against and not the religion that such terrorists or extremists claim a part of.  To go back to Abortion the equivalent comparison would be to say that Christianity is the "well known POV issue" (and not abortion) because there are many Christians who use religious justifications for disallowing abortion.  Yet, the public, not being the total dupes you'd like them to be, understands that it is not Christianity they don't support but the pro-life stance that they do not support.  The reason why I would welcome you to create these "pro-Islam" and "anti-Islam" categories in the links section is because then people would get the picture the so called "terrorism experts" whose blogs you'd like to link and non-informative apologetics others would like to link represent a very small minority of ideological extremists like yourself.  BTW calling Islam a "well known POV issue" is very telling about the minuscule amount of respect you have for Islam as a human institution, so thanks for betraying that here.  Cheers.PelleSmith 12:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Mind WP:NPA. Saying someone is anti-Islam is a personal attack.--Sefringle 02:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Did I? I don't think so but that about says it all for me.  Thanks.PelleSmith 03:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Pelle, at this time I'll have to ask you to defend your deletion of links (e.g., ) by citing specific Wikipedia policies (e.g. from WP:EL) as this debate isnt going anywhere. And people like myself who are for or against a religion are not idealogical extremists. Refrain from personal attacks like this. Also, maybe you'd like to go around on all articles related to Islam, and delete their external links too. You should apply your policies to all articles, like this one. There are many more.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 04:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

<--out dent. Way to make a whole lot of sense. That entry is about "criticism"--Criticism of Islam. How does that compare here? Maybe you should suggest a move of this entry to Opinions about Islamist terrorism and then you could link to the Pipes website with just as much validity as linking criticism of Islam to an entry by that name. BTW WP:EL is only a guideline, but if you want to know what that guideline says maybe you should take a look yourself. The the second link you provided above, to the Daniel Pipes website, does not conform with #3 on what links to include: "3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons." The material on Pipes' website is in no way neutral. Of course then there are the links to be avoided: "11. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority."--of course you will argue that he is a "recognized authority" but he is not. He is a recognized pundit with a recognized POV. Also see "2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources." Now my whole point is that NPOV does not mean that if Pipes' site is up we should link to Noam Chomsky because his POV is recognized different from Pipes'. The first link provides access to a POV held by some Muslims in regards to terrorism. As such it is a resource to use in the entry and not to link to in the end. Also it advertises books which could be in violation of "4. Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources." Anyway there is nothing stopping you from adding the links back. I am not going to police the entry. I have made my points abundantly clear and now I will leave. I promise no more comments here. Be my guest go back to the old version. Cheers.PelleSmith 17:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Pelle, no need to say "cheers" after you call me an ideaological extremist. The sites are relevant and thats all that matters. Guidelines say: "Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?" -- Yes it is, in the context of this highly POV subject - Islamist terrorism. I ask you this: When you have statements in an article like "Islamic law traditionally designates death as the penalty for apostasy (converting) from Islam", whats wrong with having an EL which elaborates on this issue? I will restore some of the deleted links at some point. This article is incomplete by the way. Next time refrain from calling people "idealogical extremists". This counts as a personal attack and is a violation of policies here.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 22:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Lack of references
The Examples of attacks section lacks references. It makes many very specific claims of dates and figures, so specific that I believe the information should be cited, especially given the controversial nature of the topic – who considers the attacks to be terrorism, and were those who committed, were accused of committing, or claimed to have committed such acts Islamic, Islamist, or neither. — George Saliba [ talk  ] 06:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

That nn terrorist is not a reliable source for interpreting the Quran
I have subsequently removed the section.--Kirby♥time 03:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We had a long discussion over this a while ago, and consensus was to keep it. See Talk:Islamist terrorism/Archive 5--Sefringle 03:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus there. Three people (including myself) say take it out, while three say keep it in.--Kirby♥time 03:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * KEEP Hypnosadist 10:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Dude, read the statement from Mohammad again. He proudly claims he did it in the name of Islam! What exactly is your problem with its inclusion? Is it POV? It's his POV! It's referenced and it stays. No rug sweeping will be encountered here. Prester John 03:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Kirby, you should read some of the previous discussions, like the one Sefringle gave. The bottomline is this: If you revert anything without justification and discussion, it doesnt work. And you're the one who deleted the text without discussion, which is why I reverted you. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I commented in that discussion myself! Also, Prester John, many of your edits are disruptive per Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents.--Kirby♥time 03:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Kirbytime, you were blocked yesterday for disruptive editing yourself. Please discuss before deleting text from this article.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please respond to others comments, rather than try to discredit their opinion.--Sefringle 03:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I refuse to respond the prester john on principle. Now I ask, Sefringle, please show me the "consensus" to include the quotes. Do you know what consensus means?--Kirby♥time 04:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Consensus means general agreement or concord; harmony. I think it is pretty clear from the previous discussion that consensus was met to keep the quote, especially since nobody has attempted to remove it in the last few months (except for a couple annon vandals).--Sefringle 04:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the opinion of a terrorist, wikipedia clearly states "Muslim terrorist Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar wrote a justification for his performing acts of terrorism in the name of Islam" it does not say "Islam says perform acts of terrorism". So what is your policy objection to this section then kirby? Hypnosadist 10:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I like the word "Islamofascist", myself, but I suggest all people concerned read at least a large chunk of the Quran before commenting too much, and some relevant Hadiths would help too. It is true that Muhammed did command phyical Jihad on behalf of Allah, and that kaffirs (non-Muslims - only later a term of racial abuse) be offered two choices:. 'People of the book' (Christians and Jews, generally extended to some others) may choose between the oppressive jizya tax, conversion, or death. Others may only choose between conversion and death. Muhammed himself was a warlord, and the Arabian empire expanded by the sword under him and his successors, the Caliphs, at an unbelievable rate. The eternal problem rears its ugly head again: it may be possible to be objective when discussing religion, but it is never possible to appear objective. If I am to be frank, any religion itself is a POV, and in my POV (something I, but not all others, feel to be neutral) most moderate Muslims are simply ignoring some basic tenets of their religion. In contrast to the Christian 'turn the other cheek' and 'go ye and make disciples of all nations', we have the commands of jihad. When anyone feels uncomfortable with something they are supposed to believe, they generally interpret it metaphorically. Thus, all of history is turned around and Westernised imams are now saying 'jihad is a spiritual battle within the soul'. We must not look at the actions of a few people who claim to be Muslims and extrapolate. Anyone could easily pretend to be a Christian and commit all sorts of terrorist acts in the name of Christianity, or pretend to be a Muslim and get consistently drunk; but if he contradict the tenets of the religion, he is just an unrepresentative minority and his actions reflect on nothing but his own character. Here we must check the Quran's own tenets and compare. But perhaps Osama has it right. Maybe the root causes of Middle Eastern misery predate 1776. - 6 July 2008 - ATS

Propose Template
With all the articles relating to Islamist terrorism, there should be a template to tie them all together which appears at the top of each page, like on Islam related articles. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Why don't you create one.--Sefringle 03:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll start thinking about it. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 04:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there anyone who opposes such a template? Plaese speak up before I start working on it. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no objection but i may have some re its content. But give it a try first. -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  14:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * COMMENT--This discussion should be held in more productive arenas. In fact it doesn't even belong here because such a template has nothing to do with the content of this entry even if as a broader category it relates to the entry itself.  This isn't a category page, or a WikiProject page, and the template would not go on this page in the end but on entries with narrower topics that may be subsumed under "Islamist terrorism".  The basic "Terrorism" template will always remain the best one here because Islamist terrorism is after all simply a form of terrorism.  So my suggestion is to bring this up on appropriate wikiproject pages if you want feedback and then maybe link to such a discussion here.PelleSmith 20:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We can discuss this right here. I started a template here: WikiProject Islam/Sandbox. I'll give an example of why this template is needed: Ahmed Santos (militant). Is there any other template that would tie these articles together? Its not a POV thing now to link these up together. The fact is that are many many articles relating to Islamist terrorism and they all bracnch off from this main article. Thats the fact. If you're going to through the "No, this belongs to the general terrorism group", you'll have to cite policies in order to prove that. You saying the general Terrorism template applies to this article more is saying something like, the Islam template belongs more to the Muhammad article than the Muhammad template itself - which is not true. The more specialized Muhammad template is the primary template on the Muhammad page. The Islam template is listed below. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 12:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I see what you're saying, so it wouldn't replace the terrorism template, but be added to the entry along with the terrorism template. BTW no amount of policies can be cited concerning content issues like what template is appropriate for what entry, and quite frankly the way that ideas like "citing policies" gets tossed around on Wikipedia makes me wonder just how large of a bureaucracy people need here in order function harmoniously.  You're right, I'm wrong, the template would be useful here, but that has nothing to do with policy.  I do not agree either with the fact that all Islamist terrorism related entries "branch off" from this one, they are simply related to this one.  I do also believe that the creation of the template probably has more than just a simply informative intent, but why waste time arguing about that.  Have fun, after you create it, arguing over whether or not it belongs on the various entries that no doubt several editors will want to place it on and several others will not.  Have fun with the  new novelty item to POV war over.  Cheers.PelleSmith 16:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it would be a new tmeplate and the terrorism template could either be below the new template or be a link inside the new template. "I do not agree either with the fact that all Islamist terrorism related entries "branch off" from this one, they are simply related to this one." - then why have a Muhammad template? All articles related to Muhammad also branch off from Islam, correct? There you go. My response to your "I do also believe that the creation of the template probably has more than just a simply informative intent" - WP:AGF --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 18:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Islamist terrorism is a common-sense and broadly-recognized category. Such a template would be appropriate and informative.Proabivouac 19:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed slight change in lead
New lead:

Islamist terrorism (also Islamic terrorism) is terrorism - an act of violence targeting non-combatants - done by a person or group identifiably Islamic, and/or to further the cause of Islam as determined by the acts' perpetrators and supporters. Amongst the controversies of the subject include: whether the motivation of the terrorists or alleged terrorists is self-defense or offensive expansion, national self-determination or Islamic supremacy; what targets of the terrorists or alleged terrorists are noncombatants; whether Islam condones, or sometime condones terrorism; whether some attacks are Islamist terrorism, or only terrorist acts done by Muslims; how much support there is in the Muslim world for what kinds of Islamic terrorism; whether the Arab-Israeli Conflict the root of Islamic terrorism, or simply one cause. .

Although the United States and Israel are probably the most visible targets of Islamist terrorism, many attacks have occurred in other countries against other targets. In the mid 1990s France was the focus of terrorism from the Algerian civil war ; Russia has faced terrorist attacks due to its involvement in Chechnya, and in 1997 the Chinese government set up the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation to combat radical Islamic movements in Central Asia.

--Leroy65X 16:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If no one has any objections I will post it after a few days. --Leroy65X 19:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no objections either.--Sefringle 01:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I like someone to consider substituting the word "as alleged" to the current "as determined" in the intro paragraph. The word determine infer more authority than is warranted. new user 30 Sep 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.126.113 (talk) 14:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality tag
The neutrality dispute appears to be deprecated to me. Unless anyone objects, I'll be removing the tag shortly. --Haemo 23:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed the tag. I remove a lot of these tags where people put them in without discussion, which makes the article look bad. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I just re-removed it. Someone added it back without discussion. Dman727 15:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Either there should be article about Christian terrorism, Jewish terrorism etc. Otherwise if this article should exist then its name should be changed. I am going to put the tag back in, until we change its name. --- A. L. M. 11:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have notice that Christian terrorism. However, Jewish terrorism needs to be created instead of a redirect. -- A. L. M.


 * There is an article dealing with Jewish terrorism at Zionist political violence... It used to be called "Zionist terrorism", but apparently some objected to that title. You can attempt to change it back, or suggest moving this article to "Islamist political violence" if it bothers you. — George [ talk  ] 11:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your understanding. That will be great. Currect title is too bad. Furthermore, one can also create article on "Terrorism against Islamist". Many in Gitmo and other securite prisions in Europe are innocient. -- A. L. M. 11:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't really have an opinion on the subject. It looks like the name was changed to Zionist political violence to match Palestinian political violence, although I'm not sure why both aren't changed to terrorism, or at the very least political terrorism, as political violence is a very vague phrase. I'd suggest leaving this article at Islamist terrorism, and moving the others to Zionist political terrorism and Palestinian political terrorism, but I'm pretty sure trying to move any of these articles is going to stir up a bees nest. Good luck to you. — George [ talk  ] 11:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The word terrorism is very Bushy. It is created in its current form after 9/11 and should never be used in the articles. Naming all Muslim criminals as terrorist is wrong. Those article have much better names. --- A. L. M. 11:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I do at least agree that the term is overused. In my opinion, terrorism should only be used to refer to those events intended to strike fear or terror into the hearts of someone. That doesn't apply in a lot of the cases the word is used, but a lot of people feel very strongly on the matter, and I'm not really in the mood to revert war over it. ;) — George [ talk  ] 12:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Should I move it to Muslim political violance (like Zionist political violence)? Any suggestions? --- A. L. M. 14:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ALM, dont make any big moves like this before consensus from everyone. This is not true and the article does not assert this: "Naming all Muslim criminals as terrorist is wrong. ". If you have a problem with Jeish terrorism, talk to people over there. When you have Christian Terrorism, you can also have Islamist terrorism. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It should be Islamic terrorism. Like Islamic science, Islamic Mathematics, etc. I tried to move these articles with no success, but either these shouldn't be "Islamic" or this article should be islamic. Why are the things that make Islam look good Islamic, while the the things that make Islam look bad "Islamist"? Not to mention the sources used say islamic.-- Sef rin gle Talk 03:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem that leads to concerns, such as those ALM has expressed here, is that I would say a minority of the cases listed on this page are truly Islamist terrorism. Maybe it's worth going through them? For instance, the first event listed is the Munich massacre, whose main article states that "The [hostage-takers] demanded the release and safe passage to Egypt of 234 Palestinians and non-Arabs jailed in Israel, along with two German prisoners". How is this an Islamist motive? This likely belongs in the Palestinian political violence article, but nothing from the main article indicates that it was Islamist terrorism. The second attack listed is the April 1983 U.S. Embassy bombing. The U.S. has accused Hezbollah of this attack, but Hezbollah denied it, and the attack took place two years before Hezbollah was officially founded. There's also the issue of whether or not Hezbollah was or still is an Islamist organization. Apparently they were at one point, then gave up on setting up an Islamic government in Lebanon. In any event, there's all kinds of problems with most of the incidents listed on this page. Maybe we should go through all of them at some point. — George [ talk  ] 21:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Interested people might check the logs for previous names, and the archives for the previous lengthy discussions about naming. Any name change is likely to be disputed, so Requested moves should be used. Tom Harrison Talk 22:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * In short the article name consists of two words. "Islamist" and "terrorism". Both words are non-sense and started getting used lately after 9/11. Encyclopedia articles are not made using political words. I am going to put the tag back in until we change its name. --- A. L. M. 07:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ALM, you're going at it again. Please drop it, its not going to work. Its going to be another repeat of the Muhammad Pictures stuff. These are terrorists committing terrorism in the name of Islam. Read the article:
 * Islamist terrorism (also Islamic terrorism) is terrorism - an act of violence targeting non-combatants - done by a person or group identifiably Islamic, and/or to further the cause of Islam as determined by the acts' perpetrators and supporters.
 * What part of this do you not agree with? No one said you're a terrorist or all muslims are terrorists. Now read the article, stop taking the article personally and go over the old debates. The move will not be agreed upon. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 11:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Why Islamist
Do we all agree that they all are extremely religious people and used to offer five time prayers and follow Quran 100%. Do all the sources mention them as Islamist or we selected this name based on majority POV? Can we change it to "Muslims" or "Islamic" etc? Please give your comments. --- A. L. M. 07:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you speak neagative about Islam, then they kill you.. That is why they calll it islamic terorist. I believe you dont know Quran.
 * I think that the minority of events listed can be classified as Islamist. Either this article's name should be changed to Islamic, or everything that is Islamic but not Islamist should be removed. — George [ talk  ] 07:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The majority name is Islamic. That is the name almost all reliable sources use. We are calling this article "Islamist" becasue User:FayssalF didn't want the association between Islam and terrorism on wikipedia in the Afd discussion back in December. Yet at the same time we have the very same association with Islamic science and Islamic mathematics, Islamic astrology, Islamic astronomy, Islamic medicine, Islamic world etc. I feel either this article should be moved to Islamic terrorism, or the other articles I mentioned need to be moved to a title without the word "islamic" in them, becaust this is just POV pushing. Somehow science is called islamic but terrorism can't be?-- Sef rin gle Talk 07:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sefringle here. Just go back read the previous discussions, ALM. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 11:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Which one? There are many. --- A. L. M. 12:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * May be this one? Okay checking. --- A. L. M. 12:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Why terrorism
They all are terrorist? If each incident mentioned there is about terrorism? Will you support to delete majority of incident mentioned there that do not come under terrorism? Otherwise name change to "violence" etc. --- A. L. M. 07:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I support the term terrorism for events that are used as tools of fear or terror, or are commonly referred to as terrorist attacks. Anything that doesn't fall into this category shouldn't be included. — George [ talk  ] 07:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, all events are terrorism-- Sef rin gle Talk 07:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Dito per Sefringle. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 11:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I will remove all the things mentioned without any reference related to terrorism. Hence if you will keep that POV filled title then you have to prove them as terrorism with sources. --- A. L. M. 12:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, go ahead and edit. We'll check up on what you're doing. As Sefringle pointed out above, make sure you apply the same standards to Islamic science, Islamic Mathematics etc. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, ALM, about your edit here, "coordinated suicide attacks" is a terrorist attack. Do you disagree? I was going to revert everything but since you're editing the page right now, I wont. Please stop removing information from this page like this. If thats what you're going to do, its obviously wrong and wont be accepted. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sources have to say them terrorist. They are suicide attack or not. Otherwise nothing will be here. Yes I will remove them ALL. The word terrorism is misused here and so is Islamist. --- A. L. M. 13:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You're demonstrating a lack of understanding of the terms here. There is no misuse. You're the one doing the misuse, because you're saying that a suicide bombing is not a terrorist attack. Tell me, are you one of those who defend suicide bombing? Is it something bad or not? If suicide bombing which kills innocent people is not a terrorist attack, what is it then? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Bad or good. We are not here to decide based on our POV. That what is called POV pusing, to push something without having sources. -- A. L. M. 14:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ALM, you are here making the absurd proposal that a suicide bombing is not a terrorist attack. This is an Islamic extremist viewpoint, i.e. to defend suicide bombings, which is sad, to say the least. I think you've gotten enough attention on this matter already. Please leave the article alone. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * why not you leave the article alone? You own it? --- A. L. M. 14:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Article Makes Valid Point
The article's evident purpose is to demonstrate that much of the terrorism that goes on in the world today is Islamic-oriented. Based on available evidence, I think the article raises a point that requires a response from followers of Islam. If Islam is a "religion of peace," and these attacks are contrary to the Koran, then why do we not see legitimate Muslim authority condemning these criminals? Instead of doing that, Muslims accuse us of being racist and bigoted, and the Muslim-based terror continues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Paul Parks (talk • contribs) 15:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This article's purpose is to provide factual, encyclopediaesque information about Islamic oriented terrorism, not to make a "point" and not to "challenge" Islam. Any speculation over if or how terorism by Muslims in the name of Islam "challenges" Islam or Muslims, can go on elsewhere, but not in wikipedia.


 * PS, make new comments at the bottom of the talk page.
 * --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Each Suicide attack = Terrorism?
Lol, this is really funny. Ok. ALM is saying that a suicide bombing is not a terrorist attack. I dont know where to start on this. Come on now, ALM, let it go. Its not going to work, trust me. A week will pass and everything will keep getting reverting. Make some sense here. A suicide bombing is a terrorist attack. Please, consult the dictionary. Or see this: From 1980 to 2003, suicide attacks amounted to only 3% of all terrorist attacks. The reference is at Suicide attack, go search it for yourself. First you said that Persecution means dying. Now you're saying a suicide bombing is not a terrorist attack. Typical. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A suicide attack could be terrorist attack but not always. Hence if source does not say it then it will be deleted. --- A. L. M. 14:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I never said persecution means dying. If he was found not guilty in court and still alive and well. I do not find him persecuted. Right or wrong cases are filed against people. We do not call them persecuted unless they are hanged wrongly. --- A. L. M. 14:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure an act that is designed to influence another persons actions through the use of fear is terrorism, and suicide bombings clearly fit in there, geez. Until(1 == 2) 14:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * To suggest that suicide bombings are not terrorist attacks stretches good faith beyond the breaking point and should bring into question the motive of any account who suggests it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dman727 (talk • contribs)
 * What are my motives? please elaborate? --- A. L. M. 14:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * God only knows. I do know that your shocking remarks trivializing terrorism is troublesome. Dman727 20:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It is very possible that ALM is just very incorrect, and that there are no ill motives. I know it seems unlikely, but it is very possible. Until(1 == 2) 14:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ALM, why dont you start with explaining why this is not an act of Islamist terrorism. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Read the edit summary. --- A. L. M. 14:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * WTF? Do you want a source that bird go tweet while I am at it? Perhaps I can find a citation to demonstrate the water is wet, and the sky is often blue. Until(1 == 2) 14:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * They are crimes. But terrorism is a political word. Hence we could find a better name for the articles. Like violance, crime. Why you insist to use word terrorism when sources does NOT mentioned them as terrorism? Is asking to find better words make my motives bad then they are really bad. --- A. L. M. 14:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you denying that these attacks were used to push an agenda through the use of fear and death? Until(1 == 2) 14:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So we can argue that Bush is also using terrorism to push a (good/bad) agenda. Furthermore, each war is terrorism because it is fought to achieve something? But we cannot and should not argue it. We should use WP:RS, instead of POV. --- A. L. M. 14:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ALM, terrorism is intentional killing of innocent people. If you dont agree, explain why. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Matt, they are criminals for sure. If all the people following got capital punishment (mostly) for killed civilans were terrorist. Executions carried out in 2006 a. China (at least 1,010) b. Iran (177) c. Pakistan (82) d. Iraq (at least 65) e. Sudan (at least 65) f. United States (53). They COULD be terrorist only if we have sources. --- A. L. M. 15:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I never said anything about good or bad. If this was an article about Bush, then we could talk about that. Just because some nation uses their media influence to avoid being labeled a terrorist, that does not mean that other nations are exempt from the term. If you want to fight to label Bush a terrorist, I will not disagree with you, but that is off topic here. Until(1 == 2) 15:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Until(1 == 2) (reply to your deleted commen) I only wish the name to be changed. Let Mr. Bush use/misuse the term. Hence if reliable source are not saying them terrorism. We could use better words like violence, crimes etc. I do not say anyone kill innocent is good. They are bad people (or animals) but not necessary terrorist. It is a political term which is very much misused after 9/11-- A. L. M. 15:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ALM, it doesnt matter if Bush uses it or not. If Bush used the term Water, should we rename that too becuase its now a political term? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:SOAP Lets stay on topic. How Bush uses the language has no bearing here. The world has been suffering from Islamist terrorism long before Bush or 9/11. Reducing "terrorist" and "terrorism" down to simple politics is simply a (thankfully) minority point of view. Dman727 07:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be wandering. To answer shortly, no, not all suicide attacks are terrorism, though most are. One good indicator is whether or not the target is military or civilian in nature, as suicide attacks on civilian targets are usually referred to as terrorism, while suicide attacks on military targets are usually referred to as acts of war. For instance, a Kamikaze attack was a suicide attack, but would not be considered terrorism. Furthermore, an act of terrorism usually has a target beyond those being killed – to drive fear and terror into a population, to force political or social changes. If someone straps a bomb onto themself, and goes and kills a specific person, with no motives beyond that target, then the act would be classified as assassination or murder-suicide, and not terrorism. In cases where suicide attacks do constitute terrorism, sources stating such should be available, and it is not a bad litmus test to have. I would suggest not removing the listed attacks, but instead adding a citation request and adding it to a list of attacks under discussion. If no one can find sources to support the label of terrorism, then it should be removed in due time. — George [ talk  ] 19:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Often sources don't mention what is incredibly obvious. Like when there is a fire they generally don't point out it is hot, but it is still safe to assume so. Until(1 == 2) 00:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, what you consider "incredibly obvious" is quite questionable, and, per Wikipedia policy, "all material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source." — George [ talk  ] 01:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That is a "style guideline", if there is a relevant "policy", I will gladly read it. Until(1 == 2) 02:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The corresponding policy is Verifiability, which states, in part, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. 'Verifiable' in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." — George [ talk  ] 02:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well given this policy, it seems that indeed each act needs a citation showing a reliable source calling it terrorism. But it seems rather silly to me. Until(1 == 2) 03:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I will add today lots of citation tags. If no sources will be provided then we should remove those claims of terrorism later on. Otherwise, we could change name (to violence, crimes etc) and keep them all. -- A. L. M. 07:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * A suicide attack is most definitely terrorism.WacoJacko 03:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As stated previously, not all suicide attacks can be classified as terrorism – Japanese Kamikaze pilots being one of the easiest counterexamples showing why such a claim is demonstrably false. — George [ talk  ] 03:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine, you can say all suicide bombings commited against civilians or commited by non military are terrorism.WacoJacko 03:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is closer to being accurate, however it lacks the crucial aspect of intention of the attack. If a suicide bomber is targetting a politician for instance, then it is not a terrorist attack, it is an assassination-suicide. Likewise, if a suicide bomber targets a specific individual, then it is murder-suicide. In order to be terrorism, the intention must include striking "fear or terror" into a group of people that were not a direct target of the bombing itself. That said, most modern suicide attacks are indeed terrorism; we just have to be sure that we don't mislabel any that aren't. — George [ talk  ] 03:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Militant Islamist
The term "Militant Islamist" redirects here. However, if you look up the word "Militant", you find it says, "The word militant has come to refer to any individual or party engaged in aggressive physical or verbal combat, usually for a cause.". While the word "militant" is often used as a "polite" way to refer to a terrorist, it is not always the case. In other words, militants may or may not be terrorists. Fanra 20:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * BINGO! Thats why we've had tp fight tooth and claw to keep the word terrorist in to separate the two. An article on militant but not terrorist islamist organisations should be created at "Militant Islamist".  (Hypnosadist )  22:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd actually advocate breaking it up into three or four articles:
 * Islamist terrorism
 * Islamic terrorism
 * Militant Islamism – I prefer the title Islamism to Islamist, just as we have the article on terrorism, not terrorists.
 * Militant Islam – for cases of Islamic militants who aren't Islamist.
 * That's my thought at least. — George [ talk  ] 23:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Another option would be to use Islamic militants and Islamist militants in place of the bottom two. Actually, these names sound better to me. — George [ talk  ] 23:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Islamic militants and Islamist militants don't make sense, as they'd just be lists of people, or at least that is what the title would imply. As for breaking up the article, I have a couple issues with that. For one, many of the above topics would overlap heavily. Second, I'm not completely sure we'd have enough unique content in each article. I am not completely against the idea, but these are some problems which would need to be addressed before any article break-up.-- Sef rin gle Talk 02:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right about those latter two sounding like lists. Also, the categories would definitely overlap, but I don't see a whole lot of options to avoid mislabelling these groups. Islamists are Islamic, but the inverse isn't true. Another option may be to use two articles: Islamic terrorism and Militant Islam, then each of those articles could have a subsection detailing which of the Islamic terrorism was Islamist, and which of the Islamic militant groups and ideologies was Isalmist. — George [ talk  ] 03:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Islamic terrorism is the best bet. Militant Islam would also be a good proposal for a new article, so long as it isn't the same as the islamic terrorism article. I think the Militant article would have to focus more on historical Islamic violence and their ideologies, while Islamic terrorism more or less on modern events. It seems like a good proposal; I support it.-- Sef rin gle Talk 03:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What's the difference between Islamic terrorism and Islamist terrorism? What's the difference between Militant Islam, Militant Islamism, and Islamism? Islamism by definition is militant. What do the archives say about why the editors chose Islamist Terrorism over Islamic terrorism, or merged Militant islam with Islamist Terrorism? --Leroy65X 19:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "Islamist ideologies hold that Islam is not only a religion, but also a political system that governs the legal, economic and social imperatives of the state." Islamic terrorism is terrorism done by people of the Islamic faith, regardless of their political affiliation, while Islamist terrorism is terrorism done by people to push their political ideology.


 * "Islamism is a term used to denote a set of political ideologies holding that Islam is not only a religion but also a political system." Militant Islamism is militant action to push a political ideology, while Militant Islam is people of the Islamic faith who are militants.
 * Islamists believe that Islamic law (Sharia) should be the law used for governing their country, and their attacks support that notion. If a group of Muslims conduct a suicide attack in order to try to change the government into an Islamic state governed by Islamic law (similar to Iran), then they are Islamists. If their goal was to establish some government not governed by Islamic law (like a democracy, or a monarchy and a parliament), then they would be Islamic, but not Islamist. — George [ talk  ] 20:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * We've heard the definitions before but where are the examples? Where is the "Militant Islam" that isn't Islamism or Islamic Fundamentalism? What islamic militants aren't interersted in being governed by Islamic law ? --Leroy65X 16:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, there are tons of them. For instance, not 'all of the Palestinian militants who are Muslim are trying to establish an Islamic government in what is today Israel; Hamas is largely Islamist, while Fatah is largely not. Some of them just want citizenship, the right to vote, or their own country and self-determination. Yes, a Muslim can, in fact, demand the right to vote or choose their own form of government without that government being governed under Islamic law. I actually rather despise the question, as it reeks of racism. "What Islamic militants aren't interested in being governed by Islamic law?" is like asking what asian person isn't good at math, or what white person dances well; these are just racial stereotypes. — George [ talk  ] 21:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't Fatah's motivation nationalist then, not Islamic? Isn't it's membership open to Christians too? How then are its members "militant Muslims"? Most Fatah members are Muslim and most are militant, but their militancy is nationalist, is it not?
 * As for the question you despise, try answering it or at least thinking about it. It is racist to ask what militant Catholic doesn't believe in papal infalibility? or what fundamentalist protestant Christian believes the bible is not literally true? You may think believing governance by Islamic law is equivalent to not being good at math or dancing, but I assure you Islamists have a very different idea. --BoogaLouie 17:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * To answer your first point, just because some of their members are Christian does not mean that there are not militant Muslims in Fatah as well. Of those, not all are Islamist. Not all muslim militants are Islamist.
 * To answer the question (as you proposed), any militant who happens to be Muslim and who does not believe in Sharia law, which is likely a majority of them, is not interested in being governed by Islamic law. Racist is the wrong term; bigoted and discriminatory are far better. To expand on your second question, it would be more like asking what Mormon doesn't want multiple wives. — George [ talk  ] 17:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't just keep saying they exist, who are they? Where? What website? I think your need to find out more about Islamic fundamentalism and Islamism. --Leroy65X 17:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The official morman church no longer allows polygamy. But if they did it would be like asking what mormon doesn't believe it is good to have multiple wives. --Leroy65X 17:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this discussion is getting a bit ludicrous. It's really very simple – a militant who is a follower of Islam can be classified as an Islamic militant or a militant Muslim.
 * If they hope to establish a government under Sharia law, then they are, by definition, also Islamist. It's entirely feasible that most, or even all, militant Muslims in the world could be Islamist, but you would need to find a source identifying each individual group as such. Otherwise you would end up inaccurately labelling every militant who happens to be Muslim and decides to fight for any cause as no different from those who attempt to establish governments under Sharia law: a complete and utter logical fallacy. This is Wikipedia – you can't simply cover a topic with biased original research frosting and call it done. — George [ talk  ] 20:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Getting back to your original premise, how is Militant Islam distinct from Militant Islamism? Where are these Islamic militants who are not Islamists (or Islamic fundamentalists)? What are their organizations? their distinct ideas? --BoogaLouie 21:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * For example, to quote Robert Pape: "Over 30% of Muslim suicide bombers were not Islamic fundamentalists." — George [ talk  ] 23:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What is Pape's premise? That the bombers are motivated by nationalism not religion, i.e. they are militant nationalists. Many of them were members of leftist groups according to his book. --BoogaLouie 22:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. It's an example showing that there are Islamic militants who are nationalistic rather than Islamist. — George [ talk  ] 22:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So their terrorism is nationalist terrorism, not Islamic or Islamist terrorism. i.e. we still have no evidence of Islamic terrorism distinct from Islamist terrorism. --BoogaLouie 17:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions
We must set and follow standard conventions for article titles. If state terrorism by the United States has been moved to Allegations of state terrorism by the United States, the same must be done for this article.--BMF81 10:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No as the US Government has not been found guilty in a court of law. Where as hundreds of Islamist terrorists have been convicted in courts all over the world. (Hypnosadist )  15:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Islamic terrorism is not an alleged concept. It is very real. Islamic Terrorism denial is just a conspiracy theory.-- Sef rin gle Talk 03:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to concur with Hypnosadist, Islamist terrorism is an established fact, numerous islamist terorrists have been convicted in a courts of law all over the globe. However, the same cannot be said for the US.WacoJacko 06:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Intro paragraph
Islamist terrorism (also Islamic terrorism and Jihadist terrorism) is terrorism - an act of violence targeting non-combatants - done by a person or group identifiably Islamic, and/or to further the cause of Islam as determined by the acts' perpetrators and supporters. Islamist terrorists are motivated by Islamism. They want theocracy and will fight to have it. Islamic militants are motivated by religion but not necessarily a longing for theocratic rule when they leave their homes throughout the Middle East to fight in Iraq, so they can't be labeled Islamists by virtue of their being Islamic. The article's opening paragraph erroneously states that a terrorist or terrorist group identifiably Islamic is therefore an Islamist terrorist or terrorist group. After all of the discussion on this page, how can that definition be presented here? I recommend the following change to the opening paragraph: Islamist terrorism is violence against non-combatants motivated by a desire for Islamic theocracy. It is differentiated from Islamic militancy and Jihadism, which are focused more on Islamic pride than Islamism and target both military forces and non-combatants. --Pat 17:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I support your suggestion generally, though the second sentence seems like it may constitute original research unless it is sourced. I would suggest something between the two version:
 * "Islamist terrorism is any act of violence targeting civilians, designed to create fear or terror, and motivated by a desire for Islamic theocracy.'"
 * I think that that is generally more accurate definition. — George [ talk  ] 20:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * May I humbly suggest the editors above inform themselves about the issue. Islamist ideology may or may not involve theocracy. Yes in the case of Khomeini and his followers. No in the case of Qutb and his.  --BoogaLouie 22:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If that is the case then you have some serious "correctional" work to do over at Islamism. Call it something else than "theocracy" but the lead of that entry states rather clearly what seems to be understood as essential to Islamism: "Islamism is a term used to denote a set of political ideologies holding that Islam is not only a religion but also a political system."PelleSmith 22:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The sunni Islamist theoritician Qutb says in his book milestones (Ma'alim fi al-Tariq) Islam is not a theocracy.
 * The way to establish God's rule on earth is not that some consecrated people -- the priests -- be given the authority to rule ... To establish God's rule means that His laws be enforced and that the final decision in all affairs be according to these laws. [Milestones p.58]
 * So his Islamism is not theocracy in the sense of "government by or subject to religious institutions and leaders", just people subject to divine law. The idea is that divine sharia law is divine and perfect, so everyone just naturally obeys it.


 * ... the believers learn the Islamic regulations and laws with eagerness and pleasure. As soon as a command is given, the heads are bowed, and nothing more is required for its implementation except to hear it. In this manner, drinking was forbidden, usury was prohibited, and gambling was proscribed, and all the habits of the Days of Ignorance were abolished -- abolished by a few verses of the Qur'an or by a few words from the lips of the Prophet -- peace be on him ... [p.32]
 * I'm not saying it makes any sense, (or even that if Qubtist ever came to power they wouldn't end up enforcing a theocracy), just that Qutbists promise that they will not bring a theocracy (and at least by the definition above they do not advocate theocracy),  so it can't be said Islamists per se advocate theocracy.  ---BoogaLouie 22:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Your own quotation doesn't seem to agree with the conclusion you're drawing from it; the definition of theocracy as "government by or subject to religious institutions and leaders" is exactly what the quote from Qutb indicates, at least to me. He appears to be only stating that the priests shouldn't "rule", but instead should "enforce" holy laws and "make decisions" according to said laws. I don't see "enforcing" and "making decisions" as outside the jurisdiction of government. — George [ talk  ] 23:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If the land falls under Sharia law, and the laws are interpreted by the clerics, it seems to me that you have effective if not actual theocracy. You make a valid point about theocracy, however, and I could see inclusion of "living under Sharia law" as the Islamists' goal rather than "theocratic rule". I'm intrigued and pleased to see how well tended this page and its discussion are. --Pat 23:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not opposed to variations on the theocracy wording by the way, such as the "living under Sharia law" suggested here, but the current wording of "holding that Islam is not only a religion but also a political system" seems a bit obtuse. — George [ talk  ] 00:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's just part of the Islamism lead definition. The next sentence includes sharia law:
 * Islamism is a term used to denote a set of political ideologies holding that Islam is not only a religion but also a political system. Islamism holds that Islamic law (sharia) must be the basis for all statutory law of society; that Muslims must return to the original teachings and the early models of Islam; and that western military, economic, political, social, or cultural influence in the Muslim world is un-Islamic. --BoogaLouie 17:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Great. So now that there "seems" to be consensus who wants to change the lead and start the edit war?PelleSmith 22:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I considered an edit, but when I looked at the rest of the article, I found it sorely lacking in many ways. If we adjust the definition, the rest of the article must agree with the new definition. Citing statistics about deaths by Islamic extremists begs the question of whether they are Islamists. The controversies section actually contains the idea that the motive of Islamism is one of many views -- can that comment stand if we agree to a new definition? The article also has a heavy American POV to it that would have to be fixed. I'll hack away at it if there is consensus for such a thing, but there's no point in fixing two lines when additional problems remain. --Pat 06:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Words to avoid
The above guidline is generally accepted among editors and should normally be followed. I am not brave enough to tag or edit this article (as I have done for Terrorism in China) but I would say that either the guidline or this article needs to be amended. Aatomic1 16:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * So is your complaint that this is an article about a particular kind of "terrorism"? That the word "terrorism" is used in the article? What exactly would remedy your complaint? --BoogaLouie 15:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In line with the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy, the words "Extremist", "Terrorist" and "Freedom fighter" should be avoided unless there is a verifiable citation indicating who is calling a person or group by one of those names in the standard Wikipedia format of "X says Y". In an article the words should be avoided in the unqualified "narrative voice" of the article. Aatomic1 17:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * So if I went around and edited all the "terrorism" (except when quoting someone or some institution) to "deliberate lethal attacks on civilians" that would satisfy you? It might get a little unreadable and academic and legalistic-sounding, but I suppose we could. --BoogaLouie 20:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe the editor is saying to be sure to provide citation for all the groups and individuals that you've labelled as terrorists, specifically indicating who labels them as such. For instace, Hezbollah has been classified as a terrorist organization by Israel, the United States, and four other countries. Things of that nature. ← George [ talk  ] 21:26, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright, that makes sense. I personally will not have time to work on it at least for a while. This is a big, messy, disorganized article with lots to work on. --BoogaLouie 15:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

move, per super-majority. --  tariq abjotu  04:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Page moving
, it appears you started problems as to where to move the article. The topic of this article is terrorism, so I suggest we move this article back to Islamic terrorism or islamist terrorism. But the violence discussed in this article is not all "political", so I removed that word from the title. Some of the violence is of religous origin, or is said to be. If you prefer Islamic violence, I am OK with that title, but I think terrorism would be most accurate. In the future, I suggest we use WP:RM for this page, as any move will be controversial.  Yahel  Guhan  05:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC) \

Requested move
Islamic violence/Islamist violence → Islamic terrorism — The move to this page was made without consensus. We should return to the most common name. The topic of this article is not just violence; it is terrorism — Yahel  Guhan  06:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we avoid the term "terrorism", and replace it something like "political violence". If we must use the term "terrorism", it should be used as "Allegations of Islamist terrorism". This is also in accordance with WP:TERRORIST.Bless sins 16:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Support per my nomination  Yahel  Guhan  06:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per my reasoning in discussion section.Bless sins 06:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support This title will better reflect the content of the article. "Political violence" is a murky euphemism and a Wikipedia neologism. In addition, there is a strong precendent in Christian terrorism. Beit Or 10:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - in reference to this edit by the discussion-starter, Islamist violence is simply a more accurate term. "Islamic violence" is a terrible misnomer - upon which no consensus exists - which gives the impression of violence covered in the article which is "Islamic" (i.e. sanctioned by Islam), and that's a POV stance. on the contrary, Islamist violence, or Islamist political violence, is nowhere near as misleading. at the same time, Islamist terrorism is not something i would prefer over the aforementioned alternatives as per WP:WTA. ITAQALLAH   01:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - Return article to Islamist terrorism. Islamic violence is very different from Islamist violence, and neither are the same as terrorism. If we keep the current title, the article will have to be expanded greatly. As for sqeamishmness about using the word terrorism, there are legitimate uses of the word even on Wikipedia, and this is one of them. Dchall1 13:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support: This was the original title of the article. As a google test, there's only 1820 results for "Islamic political violence" (frankly, I hadnt even heard the term before) and 849,000 results for "Islamic terrorism". That means, only 0.2% of the usage is for Islamic political violence (this is just a rough Google test, but it reflects whats being used in Reliable sources as well). This ratio is also reflected in Google Scholar, where only 6 sources currently are using Islamic political violence as opposed to 2,300 which use Islamic terrorism. Also clearly we all know the whole phenomena very well by the massively popular term "Islamic terrorism". Go by what people and the majority of reliable sources call it as, which is Islamic terrorism. Also like Beit Or said, we have Christian terrorism so I dont see a problem with Islamic terrorism. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 20:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikpedia has WP:TERRORIST as guidance - Google does not Aatomic1 20:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That applies to terrorist, not terrorism. Otherwise the title Christian terrorism could not exist. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Christian terrorism refers to terrorism committed by devout Christians, the equivalent of which is Muslim terrorism. Islamic terrorism, just like 'Islamic pork' or 'Islamic usury', is an oxymoron. ghits are generally of little value in Wikipedia discussions. ITAQALLAH   01:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What about Islamic science, Islamic mathematics, Islamic astrology, Islamic astronomy, Islamic medicine, Islamic sociology, etc.? Are not these oxymorons too? Yet these are the WP:COMMONNAME, and likewise, so is Islamic terrorism.  Yahel   Guhan  02:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * they aren't oxymorons, Yahel. ITAQALLAH   22:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * How are they not oxymorons, yet islamic terrorism is?  Yahel  Guhan  23:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that there may be a problem with all of the above mentioned terms, and especially so if we are to consider "Islamic terrorism" so problematic.--C.Logan 15:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose The existing guideline is generally accepted among editors and should normally be followed. ie we should change the guideline before we change back the article.  Aatomic1 20:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support: The term "Islamic violence" is far too ambiguous, and can refer to any wars or acts throughout the history of Islam. The terms "Islamic terrorism", "Islamist terrorism", "Islamist violence" or "Islamist political violence" are much more specific to the contemporary situation described in the article. Jagged 85 22:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:TERRORIST --Raphael1 12:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support - I agree with Yahel's reasoning. Personally, I don't see any real conflict with the WP:TERRORIST- the only issue there is the use of verifiable sources which claim the acts to be as such (and obviously, these sources would not be in short order). I feel that the move here is a slight case of unnecessary white-washing, though I do consider Itaqallah's mention of "Muslim terrorism"- as this religion has differing titles for concepts and adherents, we may want to consider this carefully- of course, this would, to me, warrant a judgment on whether or not to issue a name change on many other articles (and as a note, I see no great difference in POV-ism in the suggestion that "violence can be sanctioned by Islam" and the suggestion that "science can be sanctioned by Islam" - both are simply views upon which some agree and some disagree).--C.Logan 15:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: as a sidenote, i think the case of other articles which use 'Islamic' needs to be dealt with on a case by case basis. in some instances it may be appropriate, such as Islamic medicine (i.e. referring to medicinal techniques encouraged in Islamic primary sources), Islamic sociology, Islamic art and architecture (in referring to arts that comply with Islam, or are devotional, etc.), Islamic finance, and so on. in others it may not be so appropriate, like Islamic mathematics or Islamic astronomy, where "Muslim" may be a better replacement. in either case they wouldn't be oxymorons like 'Islamic terrorism' (or my above examples) is. ITAQALLAH   16:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I agree with you here for the most part. However, one has to remember that these individuals obviously don't find the concept of commiting acts of terror in the name of Islam as "oxymoronic", and that they may come from a school which endorses this viewpoint. At the same time, many fundamentalists may or may not reject some of the advances in the fields of science and so on. So, as with all primary sources, whether or not something "endorses" something is up for interpretation: note the division of views on Christ's statement in Matthew 10:34. I'm not saying that you're wrong, but that these individuals, however misguided, seem to find these acts of terror to be endorsed by their religion. It's worth considering, in any case.--C.Logan 01:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * that is of course a valid point. the consideration is that such links aren't made in the academic or the Muslim community at large. here is where WP:UNDUE or WP:FRINGE may apply, as those who consider terrorism being Islamic or explicitly sanctioned by Islam are in the minority, and as such it would be inappropriate to use a title which reflect the significant issue of Muslim/Islamist terrorism from the viewpoint of a distinct minority (i.e. "Islamic"). extending the above analogy, there were indeed jurists who virtually legalised usury, zina, alcohol etc. but these viewpoints were fringe minority ones (thus phrases like "Islamic usury" still remain self-contradictory). my point is that the article title doesn't have to necessarily adopt a stance on legitimacy or otherwise by reflecting the majority or minority view, the whole issue of potential misnomers can be avoided by preferring "Islamist" over "Islamic" - whilst the title will still reflect the fact that alleged perpetrators believe it to be permitted by Islam. ITAQALLAH   20:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Support: agree with Jagged 85. "Islamic violence" is too vague. It's not a term used by the public. We are dealing with a current wave of bombings and killings based on a particular Islamic school known as Islamism. Not to any wars or acts of violence that have occured in the history of Islam. The terms "Islamic terrorism", "Islamist violence" or "Islamist political violence" are much more specific to the contemporary situation described in the article. --BoogaLouie 16:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per BoogaLouie above. 'Islamic violence' is a downright absurd name for this article: it is clearly about acts of terrorism committed by those who call themselves Islamists for supposedly Islamist purposes, and 'Islamist terrorism' is the best name for that. A name that avoids the word 'terrorism' seems, to me, just to be trying to avoid controversy, but that's impossible when the controversial topic is the very subject of the article. The words 'terrorist' and 'terrorism' should not be used lightly on Wikipedia, but this article is one instance where their use is entirely justified. Terraxos 04:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Note - I commented on this survey having misread the move proposal, and thinking it was to move to Islamist terrorism, not Islamic terrorism. That is the title I prefer (as it was supported by consensus for some time, and simply seems more specific), but I would still support 'Islamic terrorism' over the current title. Terraxos 04:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

Firstly all acts considered "terrorism" can be classified as "violent". Another thing is NPOV. While one's man's terrorist may be another man's freedom fighter, a violent act is violent. No one can deny that.

Secondly, let's look for precedent here. Zionist terrorism is titled Zionist political violence. American state terrorism is titled Allegations of state terrorism committed by the United States. Palestinian terrorism is titled Palestinian political violence. State terrorism by Iran is titled Allegations of Iranian state terrorism. "Russian terrorism" is titled Allegations of state terrorism by Russia, and "Sri Lankan state terrorism" is titled Allegations of state terrorism in Sri Lanka.Bless sins 06:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * while your first point is true, we are focusing on this article. This article does not focus on all muslim violence; it only focuses on terrorism. What we are refering to in this article is terrorism. There is no NPOV issue with calling well accepted terrorist groups terrorists, unless you are in the business of denying terrorism, which it sounds like you are doing. Do you deny that al-qaeda, hamas, and hizbollah are terrorist organizations? There is no way that any targeting of innocant civilians is "freedom fighting." Second, as for your second arguement, many of the articles you mentioned actually do use the word "terrorism" in their ittle, so I don't see what your point is by listing random articles.  Yahel  Guhan  09:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Christian terrorism is just Christian terrorism. Islamic terrorism is thus perfectly legitimate as a title. Beit Or 10:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In light of so many articles that don't declare allegations of terrorism as fact, "Christian terrorism" should also be changed. And Yahel Guhan, Hamas and Hezbollah are not viewed as terrorist groups in the Arab/Muslim world (ofcourse there are exceptions). "Second, as for your second arguement, many of the articles you mentioned actually do use the word "terrorism" in their ittle, so I don't see what your point is by listing random articles." They use the term "Allegations of terrorism", noting (correctly) that the allegation of terrorism is just that - an allegation. It's not fact.Bless sins 16:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't give undue weight to Hamas and Hizbollah's views just becasue they don't self identify as the terrorist organizations that they are. None of the sources use "allegations." They all use terrorism. It isn't an allegation; it is a generally accepted fact by everyone who isn't a terrorist supporter. Did you even read the sources?  Yahel  Guhan  17:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really. The allegation that Hezbollah is terrorist isn't accpeted by much of the Arab and Muslim world. Similarly the allegation that America sponsors terrorism, isn't accepted by much of the Western world.Bless sins 01:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So you keep denying terrorism. It doesn't matter what some small percentage of extremist arab muslim terrorist deniers/supporters think. To compromise the integrity of this article for that is WP:UNDUE.  Yahel  Guhan  02:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it is important for all to avoid straw man positions- following Wipedia guidlines is not a denial of anythingAatomic1 10:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, but using common names for topics is not against wikipedia policy. There are plenty of terrorism articles, and there is no policy that says they must be avoided when the common name for the concept is "terrorism" and the subject of the article is terrorism.  Yahel  Guhan  23:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yahel Guhan, your requested page move is a little misleading. the previous consensus - and the article title since December 2006 - was 'Islamist terrorism'. yet, in this discussion, that option of deferring to existing consensus ('Islamist terrorism') has not been given (or, at least, made clear) to contributors, which is especially important to those less familiar with the article history. ITAQALLAH  23:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want to offer other move options, you are more than welcome to re-nominate the article to be moved somewhere else once this discussion is complete.  Yahel  Guhan  23:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * as long as you clarify in your opening statement that the previous consensus was with 'Islamist terrorism' - thus allowing for any closing administrator to know to rename it back to that title if no consensus emerges from this discussion (which seems a likely scenario) - then that will be sufficient. ITAQALLAH   20:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment - the fact that other articles are badly named is not a justification for this one to be misnamed as well. My personal opinion is that most of the articles listed by BlessSins above should be renamed to simply use the word 'terrorism' in the titles. Consensus seems to be against me on this one, but I do recognise the value of being consistent - one way or the other. Terraxos 04:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Disturbing trend to whitewash history
I have noticed that some contributors to this article seem to be desperate to wash over the parallels between Islam and Islamist terrorism. You need not look further than the term "Islamist terrorism" itself, which is improper grammar in English. I believe that the term is preferred to "Islamic terrorism" because the latter seems, in their minds, to connote that terrorism is sanctioned in the religion. I personally despise this kind of thinking because it assumes that the reader is a moron who cannot discover the truth. I have seen this kind of handling of controversial subjects in other articles. I have even seen attempts to delete articles of that type from Wikipedia. I should probably note here that I am a liberal with no agenda here other than to comment. I just hate seeing this kind of desperate attempt to conceal the truth. Deal with the subject head-on and do not shy away from the harsh reality. - Cyborg Ninja 04:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Article Title
it should be Islamized Terrorism in place of islamic, as any religion cannot be proponant of hate or crime/Zikrullah 14:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC) Now that the title has been changed, why is it called Islamic terrorism rather than Islamist terrorism? If I'm reading things correctly, that is what the article used to be called. Also, I think Islamist is more accurate than Islamic (Islamist implying religious goals behind acts of terrorism; Islamic simply means terrorism committed by Muslims for any number of purposes). Thoughts? Dchall1 04:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I find "Islamist" to be too restrictive; this article appears to deal with both Islamic and "Islamist" terrorism. Some people seem to object to the term "Islamic" because people believe it implies that Islam sanctions it (on this note, I agree with Cyber Ninja's sentiment above). In my opinion, "Islamic terrorism" is the most accurate term one can use for the subject- this deals with the subject generally, and not every terrorist attack is perpetrated by "Islamists".--C.Logan 05:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Additionally, I think you may mean "political goals" in place of "religious goals". Islamism is based in the politics of Islam; one would be hard-pressed to find an Islamic terrorist attack without "religious goals" involved.--C.Logan 05:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I stand by my original statement - based on the content of the article, I still think Islamist is a better term. Of the groups specifically mentioned on the page, all except Lashkar-e-Toiba are fighting for religious motivations. Groups like the PFLP, Abu Nidal, and various Chechen groups are Islamic terrorists, but they fight for political goals (homeland, etc.). These goals are very difference from groups like al-Qaeda and the Egyptian Islamic Jihad. If you still disagree with me, please consider that a week ago this article was entitled Islamist Terrorism. Thanks! Dchall1 15:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what your argument is. How do you think "Islamist" is different from "Islamic"? Beit Or 21:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The difference is in motivation. And Islamic terrorist is one who is Muslim and pursues terrorism for any number of reasons (separate homeland, etc.). And Islamist terrorist is one who pursues terrorism for religious goals, primarily to establish an Islamic state. The PKK or any number of Palestinian groups are Islamic terrorists - they are fighting for goals not specifically related to Islam. Islamist terrorism is a narrower category, and it's what the article itself focuses on. Essentially, I'm saying that all Islamist terrorists are also Islamic terrorists, but not all Islamic terrorists are Islamists. Am I still not making sense? Dchall1 21:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, there's a problem here. The article makes it clear in the first sentence that the subject does not merely pertain to attacks commited by groups commited to Islamism, or specifically groups at all. As such, using the more specific terminology does not make any sense when the article treats the subject in general (as it stands, there is simply more available information concerning organizations, as should be obvious. If there is no article devoted to terrorism commited outside of an Islamist ideology by groups or individuals in the name of Islam, then we shouldn't make this article titled to cover only a particular form of the greater concept. If this is to be an article concerning only Islamist terrorism, than a seperate article should be created for the more general subject. As far as I'm concerned, however, we should attempt to keep everything in one article.--C.Logan 22:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree that the current name accurately reflects the content of this article. Reading through it, it is clearly about Islamist groups - that is, those whose acts of violence and terrorism are based in/driven by Islam. Every group listed on this article fits into that category. 'Islamic terrorism' is a rather vaguer name, but it suggests terrorism committed by any Islamic group, for any reason, which does not seem to be what this article is about. It's important to distinguish between terrorist groups that are specifically Islamist and those terrorist groups that simply happen to be Muslim, and this article is about the former. Terraxos 01:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Islamic is more accurate, as many of the palestinian terrorist groups (Hamas and Hizbollah) act in the name of islam, but their goal is not islamism in itself; rather their goal is the eratication of Israel as a jewish state. Technically, thaey are not Islamist terrorists, but still are islamic terrorists. Besides, Islamic terrorism is the common name; recieves far more hits than Islamist terrorism. Islamic terrorist groups differ from islamist terrorist groups in their goals; only Al-Qaeda can be declared islamist; the others are rather islamic.  Yahel  Guhan  04:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the introductory sentence makes it clear that "Islamism" is not the sole topic in the article. Even ignoring this, I'm very trouble by the idea of "Islamic terrorism" redirecting to an article which (according to a few editors) only covers "Islamist terrorism". Unless there is an article to cover each subject, we should tread both topics within this article, and therefore should choose the more general (and accurate) terminology.--C.Logan 22:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the current article name Islamic terrorism is the best yet suggested. It may not be perfect, but all the other suggestions fail WP:UE badly, and appear to do so to promote a particular POV.

Or to approach it another way, there's little doubt that there's an encyclopedic topic called Islamic terrorism. So, that's what this article should be about. If people feel that Islamist terrorism or Islamic violence deserves an article, then feel free to have a go at writing one. Andrewa 09:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I consider that rename a bad decision. It "moves" "terrorism" away from fanatic extremists (as Islamists are generally perceived) towards the average Muslim. Now WP got an article, where every violent group can be listed, if the members consider themselves to be followers of Muhammed. --Raphael1 23:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Islamists are not just "rantic extremists;" they incorperate large percentages of muslims; basicly any muslim who supports islamic states and their expansion. And no, every violent group cannot be mentioned; they first have to meet the definiton of terrorism (groups which target innocent civilians- which means they are not just any violent group of muslims) and they must act in the name of islam even if their goal isn't islamism. Under the title Islamic violence, anyone acting in the name of islam could be included, so terrorism is a better title.  Yahel  Guhan  08:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyone who supports islamic states is an islamist? Does that include the Bush administration which supports Saudi-Arabia and Pakistan? If you ask any sane islamic cleric, whether innocent civilians can be targeted in the name of Islam, he will probably deny that and proof his negation with religious sources. Therefore this article can only list groups, who act in the name of their distorted view on Islam (which is hopefully what you intended to say), which is why the title of this article is bad. --Raphael1 15:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What I mean by a supporter of the islamic state is not they support a particular state; it means they want their nation to be ruled by islamic law. Whether their view of Islam is distorted or not is a matter of opinion, and that alone does nothing to the integrity of this article. A basic summary of your arguement is: "I think terrorism is not a part of islam, so therefore I think the article should not be called Islamic terrorism. So tell me how Islamic science, Islamic mathematics, Islamic astrology, Islamic astronomy, Islamic medicine, Islamic sociology, etc. are a part of Islam? The answer is they are not. Muhammad did not preach science, math, astrology, astrpmy, medicine, sociology, etc. Followers of Muhammad did, and that doesn't make it a part of Islam.  Yahel  Guhan  06:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, that it is a matter of opinion whether their view of Islam is distorted or not. But it dumbfounds me to see, that you seem to actually siding with terrorists, who believe their views to be a genuine form of Islam. And yes, science, mathematics and astrology and all other forms of acquisition of knowledge are indeed encouraged by Islam. See Ilm (Arabic). --Raphael1 12:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's notable that the article to which you've linked states that the term refers to knowledge of Islam, and says little concerning science mathematics and astrology. The problem here lies in the fact that the claim of support is only a slightly more weighty exegesis in this case than with the case of those who read commands of violence in the verses. I'm always a little irked when I hear things like this; exegesis is subjective- I come from a religion where thousands of denominations form from separate exegeses of the exact same book. You believe that these things are encouraged by Islam, while others believe otherwise.


 * On a separate note, it is troubling to see some of the advances possessed by the Middle East during the Middle Ages attributed to the religion of the region- ignoring the history of cultural and technological advancement, the position of trade-routes (which facilitated the spread of knowledge and technology from lands far off), and the conquest and possession of some of the more advanced regions of the Eastern Roman Empire. All these factors had an inestimably larger hand in the state of the region, and it worries me to see some users using flawed logic in the matter to proselytize for the aforementioned religion (this is not in reference to Raphael1's statement, obviously).--C.Logan (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * what do people think about an article title such as "Muslim terrorism"? at least, it allays my concerns and other editor's concerns with the use 'Islamic' in this case (as articulated previously), and it still indicates actions of Muslims in the name of Islam (were it not in the name of Islam, then their being Muslim would be mere coincidence; it would then be 'Arab terrorism', 'Nationalist terrorism' or something else). i don't agree with Sefringle's generalization of article titles preceded with "Islamic" - in this instance topics should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. some articles, such as Islamic mathematics, Islamic astrology, might be better named as Muslim mathematics and Muslim astrology respectively. other article titles, such as Islamic hygiene, Islamic finance, Islamic art, would be much more appropriate being kept as they are (we discussed this in the above move request). ITAQALLAH   18:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't have any great ideas to contribute here, only a question: What unintentional systemic bias can be perceived in the fact that Christian terrorism and Islamic terrorism exist as independent articles, while "Jewish terrorism" redirects to Religious terrorism? BYT (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I fixed that by creating a stub called Jewish terrorism. --Raphael1 20:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay ... in that case I suppose we now have a state of equal-opportunity polarization, with titles similarly offensive to practitioners of each faith system. Sigh. BYT (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I'm not fond of it either, but it would be worse if only 2 out of 3 abrahamitic religions had their terrorism page. --Raphael1 20:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I support changing to Islamist. Islam is a religion, Islamism is the ideology within Islam upon which the terrorist activities are based.Osli73 (talk) 10:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Islam is a religion which is named by terrorists themselves as their cause of action; the religion alone, apart from Islamist politics, acts as the named cause for many of the terrorist attacks which occur each year. As such, "Islamist terrorism" is a topic which neglects a sizable portion of Islam-related terrorists attacks; if one were to name this article "Islamist terrorism", then it would be reasonable to create a separate article pertaining to "Islamic terrorism", lest a rather important topic be ignored because of an unusual trend of whitewashing. As it is, I think both Islamic and Islamist acts should be covered here, so I support the more general terminology.--C.Logan (talk) 20:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * what are your thoughts about my above comments concerning the title "Muslim terrorism"?  ITAQALLAH   14:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think your points and proposal are rather good. I agree that things like Islamic art should hold onto the name justly. However, the name "Muslim" sounds a little clunky-language wise (though it may just be my familiarity with the current title). Additionally, this reminds me of the case with Muslim inventions, which underwent an article change- one particularly good reason being that "inventions don't have a religion; only people do", thus leading a change to Inventions in the Muslim world.


 * Of course, this change is not a great model for emulation; inventions are things, not ideas like mathematics or astrology (terrorism is somewhat halfway between the two categories), and obviously the fair "in the Muslim world" descriptor is certainly not accurate in the case of Muslim-perpetuated terrorism. I think a proposal should be forwarded to get a general idea on editor response. The discussion seems to be slowing a bit, but a casual vote on this may show consensus on your idea, which still seems fair despite my apprehension.--C.Logan (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

1 vote for Islamist terrorism and against Islamic Terrorism. Agree with Osli73. It is true that "Islam is a religion which is named by terrorists themselves as their cause of action," but we don't call the actions of the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda Christian Terrorism just because the Lords Army says they are acting as good Christians. Islamist Terrorism does not represent the Islamic belief of all or even most Muslims. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yet again, this doesn't address the fact that "Islamist" only describes one facet of the concept of Islamic terrorism, i.e. acts of terrorism perpetrated by Muslims in the name of their religion. Islamism is a politics-based concept which relies on structured organizations who carry out thoroughly-planned terrorist operations. As I'd pointed out, the problem lies in the fact that if this article is turned into one dealing only with "Islamist terrorism", there would have to be an article dealing with non-Islamist terrorist attacks carried out in the name of Islam; Islamic terrorism applies generally to the topic, and therefore the elimination of a general title in favor of some strange and unnecessary censorship.


 * To note, we would be calling the LRA a terrorist organization if a source referred to the group as such, as has happened in the case of the comparable National Liberation Front of Tripura. It is true, as you say, that "Islamist terrorism does not represent the Islamic belief of all or even most Muslims", but I'm pointing out that Islamist motivations do not represent the motivations of all Muslim terrorists. We have to come up with a better title, or else we'll be imposing an inappropriate moniker for silly reasons. Perhaps Itaqallah's "Muslim terrorism" would be a compromise, although something about that name sounds half-baked. In all honesty I wonder why no such naming fervor is presented at Christian terrorism.--C.Logan (talk) 00:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Where is there a movement of Islamic but non-Islamist terrorism?
 * There is a movement of Islamist terrorism - return to sharia, takfir and killing of non-Islamist but self-described Muslims, etc.
 * There are Muslims engaged in terrorism for nationalist reasons.
 * But there is no movement of Muslims killing civilians for some other reason or group of reasons that are neither Islamist nor nationalist. Without such a movement of Muslim non-Islamist terrorism, there is no reason to call this article Islamic terrorism instead of Islamist terrorism. -- BoogaLouie (talk) 16:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This is what I was trying to say in the first place. Various nationalist terrorist groups (Kashmiri, Palestinian, etc.) can all be covered within their own articles. But there is something different and special about Islamist terrorism that deserves its own article. Dchall1 (talk) 01:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * C.Logan, the reason why there's no such naming controversy over at Christian terrorism is because of the difference in terminology. a person who practices "Christianity" is a "Christian". a person who practices Islam is a "Muslim" (not an Islamer, Islamic, Islamian etc). thus, with the latter, there is clear difference in terminology between a religion and its practitioner. yet the phrase "Christian terrorism" clearly refers to terrorism perpetrated by Christians (where their being Christian is significant). the equivalent of that expression for this topic is "Muslim terrorism", where, as with the former example, the focus is on the practitioners and not the religion as a whole. similarly, Jewish terrorism is not referred to as Judaic terrorism. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   21:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm aware of the difference in terminologies, but it doesn't seem clear that it refers to things one way or another; there is unaddressed ambiguity in "Christian terrorism"- if one can see "Christian charity" as being at once something prescribed and something performed by adherents, then the same could reasonably apply to the concept of "terrorism". "Jewish" and "Judaic" are not clearly assigned in the same manner; "Jewish" be used to describe religious concepts just as much as (and perhaps more often than) "Judaic". The same can be said for "Islamic" and "Muslim" in several instances. One might describe the belief in the one-ness of God as an "Islamic belief" or the "Muslim belief" [in...]. It is for this reason that I noted that your proposed solution was missing something for clarification, even though it may be an improvement.--C.Logan 19:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a suggestion: What about "Terrorism by Muslims"? --Aminz (talk) 21:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "Terrorism by Muslims" will just not cut it as one of the main reasons for islamic terrorism is to promote the objectives of the Umma (whatever they are in the mind of the terrorist) as opposed to a crime that is commited by someone who happens to be a muslim. <font color="#000">(<font color="#c20">Hypnosadist )  09:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * that contention doesn't make sense, Hypnosadist. the whole point of mentioning "Muslim" is because of the fact their being Muslim has something to do with it. if it wasn't, then it would be "(nationality) terrorism" or another "(ideology) terrorism" . Aminz, "Terrorism by Muslims" == "Muslim terrorism". <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   17:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll
in the light of the above discussion, what do people think about Islamic terrorism → Muslim terrorism? i know that several editors have described a preference for "Islamist terrorism", but is what i propose a reasonable compromise until we develop consensus on 'Islamist terrorism' or an alternative title? please indicate your approval or otherwise along with any helpful reasoning. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH  22:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1 vote against. It may have a good theory as to why it is more logical phrase to use than "Islamic terrorism", but I've never heard the phrase "Muslim terrorism" used among english speakers. As mentioned before my vote is for "Islamist Terrorism". --BoogaLouie 22:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1 vote against. Though I agree with the theory for calling it Islamist, I see that it is not that commonly used. So, I vote for sticking with the most commonly used term. Though perhaps we could mention that Islamist is also used ("...by some academics" or something to that effect).Osli73 08:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1 vote against Per BoogaLouie, my first choice is Islamist, but absolutely not "Muslim Terrorism". Dchall1 20:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll #2
as it seems my above suggestion hasn't been too popular, what do people think about Islamic terrorism → Islamist terrorism (an option which appears to be preferred by quite a few here)? <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH  17:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 1 vote for for reasons mentioned above. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1 vote for "Islamic terrorism" and "Muslim terrorism" could easily be missunderstood.--Raphael1 22:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1 vote against for reasons mentioned above.  Yahel  Guhan  06:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1 vote against: Everyone uses Islamic terrorism. If you want to know the truth, I was surprised by the use of "Islamist terrorism" here. I had never heard of that before. If you have Christian terrorism, the parallel is Islamic terrorism. If something is Christian in nature (e.g. terrorism), then to describe something related to Islam, its Islamic terrorism, not Islamist terrorist. We're describing an object or concept, not a person. The term Islamist is related to a person, not an object or concept. The closed poll above showed a consensus to name it Islamic terrorism already.--Matt57 (talk•contribs) 12:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * the parallel of Christian terrorism is Muslim terrorism. i don't understand your argument against Islamist terrorism (the title is not Islamist terrorist) - Islamist is the adjective of Islamism. the closed poll showed that people favored "Islamic terrorism" over the previous title which had only been in effect for a few days - Yahel Guhan (disingenuously, i might add) didn't give people the oppurtunity to know about the longstanding consensus about 'Islamist terrorism' or offer it in the merger proposal - even though he knew that the community consensus favoured Islamist terrorism over "Islamic extremist terrorism" and "Islamic terrorism" previously. the honest thing to do would have been to mention this in his proposal and give it as an option - you'll see that many people above in fact favoured a rename Islamist terrorism (Dchall1, Terraxos, BoogaLouie, Jagged 85) - the only consensus was to use terrorism over violence. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   13:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1 vote against: If this isn't too late, I've already elucidated on my concerns.--C.Logan (talk) 09:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1 vote against: Islamist terrorism is not the most common name for it; it is correctly (and most commonly) Islamic terrorism. That is clearly what it is, the same as Christian terrorism is such (and Jewish terrorism is such). Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think few wikipedians participated in former discussions and we can't judge on the basis of their idea. I put a comment in talk page of wikiproject terrorism and wikiproject Islam and invite wikipedians to participate in the discussion. -- Seyyed(t-c) 16:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1 vote against - see my comment in Straw poll No. 1 aboveOsli73 (talk) 11:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1 vote against:It is Islamic terrorism and should be called such muslims dont seem to have the same problems about the name of their religion being aplied to anything good they might do se this exampleInventions in the Islamic world where Muslims claim every invention invented near an Islamic state as an "Islamic Invention"Oxyman42 (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll #3
I found three idea above.


 * 1) Islamic terrorism


 * 1) Islamist terrorism

muslim ter. is best title. 122.161.37.88 (talk) 10:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Muslim terrorism

Disputed tag
The "disputed" tag has recently been posted. "Please participate in the current discussion to built consensus about the topic." Maybe we could start the person who tagged the article telling us what's wrong with it. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I second that.Osli73 (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As you can see, I put a comment above this section. As I know there are few wikipedians who participate in the former discussion about the title of this article and there wasn't consensus among them.-- Seyyed(t-c) 04:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is too bad there is not an agreement and not more participation. Is that why you tagged the article? You "dispute the factual accuracy" of the title Islamic terrorism? --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I meant the title is controversial. Maybe you can find a better tag to show it.-- Seyyed(t-c) 02:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems we have votes for a change of the article title to Islamist terrorism by <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH , Raphael1, and myself BoogaLouie (talk) 15:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC) , and no votes against.


 * Would changing the title to Islamist terrorism satify your concerns? For that matter, does anyone else object to this change of title? --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * i think it's a positive step forward. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   19:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it would be. --Raphael1 17:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. We can move the article and remove the tag.-- Seyyed(t-c) 04:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We can? There doesn't seem to be consensus for a move.--C.Logan (talk) 09:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

In choosing between "Islamic" or "Islamist" terrorism we really should stick to what is most commonly used in English language media. Wether there are arguments for one version being more 'correct' or 'offensive' is not the issue. A very brief look at how major news sites - the BBC, New York Times and CNN - reveals that both are used but that "Islamic terrorism" (and its variants "Islamic terrorists" and "Islamic terrorist") are far more common than "Islamist". "Muslim terrorism" is also used, but less commonly. So, if there are no other reasons I suggest that we keep the "Islamic terrorism" title. Any objections to the title could be included in the article (granted that we find credible sources discussing the issue, otherwise it would be OR).Osli73 (talk) 11:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe "Islamist terrorism" would be an improvement of the title. I see that the phrases "Islamic terrorism" and "Islamist terrorism" each appear in the NYT, with the former far more numerous. Still, it looks pretty inaccurate, to me, to suggest that terrorism can be Islamic, when Islamic peoples overwhelmingly decline to partake of it. It should also be noted that the phrase "Islamic terrorism/-ist" is often prefaced by the word "militant", to qualify it as an atypical Islam. The most recent NYT article I looked at was very careful to observe the distinctions between these terms, Islamist and Islamic. DBaba (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This page is full of fake ideas and biased opinions
I suggest it should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiimonkey9 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Any suggestion where one should start?--C.Logan (talk) 18:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Pig skins against muslim terrorists !
Muslims hold a strong view of corpse defilement. The souls of bodies that are desecrated in certain ways are said to be blocked entrance to heaven. In Islam, pigs are considered to be unclean animals, and so a corpse's contact with a pig would constitute such defilement. In India during the days of British colonialism, British troops and institutions were often the target of suicide attacks by Muslims. Knowing the Muslim view of martyrdom and pigs at the time, the British reacted by wrapping the corpses of suicide attackers in pig skins and interning them in hidden locations. They then informed the Muslim comminity that the corpses of all other suicide attackers would be treated in the same way. The number of sucide attacks decreased considerably from that point on —Preceding unsigned comment added by Transsylvanian (talk • contribs) 20:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Uhmm okay. well this was completely made up. Any sources? no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PatelPatel007 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Atrocious and patently erroneous intro sentence
The intro sentence reads, in part, that Islamic Terrorism "is terrorism - an act of violence targeting non-combatants - perpetrated by a person or group identifiably Islamic". Then it contains a conjunctive and a disjunctive (and/or), continuing, "to further the cause of Islamism as determined by the acts' perpetrators and supporters". This sentence is just plain incorrect. No expert in religious terrorism would agree with it. It basically says that any terrorism committed by an Islamic person is Islamic terrorism, e.g. a person, who just happens to be Muslim, for no reason relating to his religion, perhaps for purely nationalistic reasons, commits an act of terror - it is an act of Islamic terrorism. Obviously this is wrong. There are plenty of experts who have addressed the issue. I would suggest that an editor of this article (preferably someone with an ounce of sense) correct it. Otherwise, I will get to it when I have time.Mamalujo (talk) 09:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you elaborate a bit? Is it that you want the "and/or" removed, or is it something beyond that?--C.Logan (talk) 09:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well removing the word "or" would be a start.Mamalujo (talk) 01:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * We wouldn't need the "and" at that point either, would we? The sentence makes grammatical sense without it.--C.Logan (talk) 08:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The lead has been rewritten to reflect other similar pages on Wkipedia.--Cberlet (talk) 12:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks.--C.Logan (talk) 12:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Lead needs work and some rvt
The new changed in the lead don't follow WP:Lead guidlines. They aren't an concise overview of the article. don't establish context, summarize the most important points, or explain why the subject is interesting or notable.

The original lead sentence is long and a little convoluted in an effort to get the definition exact. For example it now reads
 * religious terrorism by those whose motivations and aims have a predominant Islamic character or influence

What is religious terrorism? What consititutes a "predominant Islamic character" Does it mean the opertives are following Islam or their interpretation of islam?

We can't have quotes from someone's professor in the lead. There are thousands of self-proclaimed experts on terrorism. Individual potificating ("Mark Juergensmeyer suggests...") may be appropriate in the body but not in the lead. The lead has to be concise not full of "suggests that religious terrorism consists of acts that terrify, the definition of which is provided by the witnesses - the ones terrified - and not by the party committing the act; accompanied by either a religious motivation, justification, organization, or world view... "

Statements like "Religious terrorism is intimately connected to current forces of geopolitics." have to be cited and explained.

--BoogaLouie (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The statement "Religious terrorism is intimately connected to current forces of geopolitics" was cited to Juergensmeyer. He isn't just "someone's professor" or a "self proclaimed expert"- he's an acknowledged expert in religious violence with hundreds of relevant peer-reviewed publications to his name (check his CV). This type of source is one of the best available to Wikipedia. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * One of hundreds of "acknowleged experts", many of whom disagree with each other. If every acknowledged expert held forth in the lead on the essence of Islamic terrorism it would be book-length. The lead must be a concise summary. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

POV in definition
"Islamic terrorism is religious terrorism by those whose motivations and aims have a predominant Islamic character or influence." So carrying out a terrorist attack can have other influences (money, power), but Islam is the predominant influence on the aims and motivations of the Islamic terrorist. This can only mean that Islam somehow justifies terrorism - if it did not, someone whose motivations have a predominant Islamic character would not become a terrorist.

I don't think religious terrorism is motivated by religion itself, but by people who try to achieve their goals or protect their interests by abusing the powerful and respected system of religion to misinform martyrs-to-be and to justify their actions.

The discussion about the laws and values of the muslim faith has been going on forever, and probably will, but this article seems to have taken a very controversial POV on the Islamic values and laws on terrorism.

I suggest something like "Islamic terrorism is terrorism by those who claim their motivations and aims have a predominant Islamic character or influence." Bastc (talk) 02:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, awful intro. That suggestion is much better. DBaba (talk) 02:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, the first sentence is not adequately cited. The text lifted from Hoffman is describing "religious terrorism", not "Islamic terrorism". Note the yellow-highlighted "religious character" to see what the citation refers to:   My point here is not to take issue with Hoffman or the basic assertion, but just that the phrase "Islamic Terrorism" is controversial (see also ) in a way that " radical Islamic terrorism" and "Islamist terrorism" are not, and requires some authentication. DBaba (talk) 04:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead is not the place to qutoe the pontifications of Hoffman or anyone of the 100,000 self-proclaimed experts on Islamism and the causes of terrorism. The overview is much better than the current lead. --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The Juergenmeyer suggestion in the lead simply states that the "witness" decides if a specific act is terrorism, not the one committing the act. I'm pretty sure this line of reasoning will not be accepted to detemine the status of of the bombing campains in Serbia.

Hoffman merely states that in order for terrorism to be labeled religious, some amount of religion should be involved.

I don't think any of these statements should be the first thing viewers read, and I doubt if they add much value to the article. I'd much rather see some more emphasis on the contradiction between terrorism and the widely regarded pieceful image of religion. Bastc (talk) 01:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The whole point of changing the leads of Islamic terrorism and Christian terrorism was to eliminate the blatant POV violation (previously, the leads basically suggested that Muslims are terrorists, but Christian terrorism doesn't really exist, and those people aren't really Christian anyway). Now that there's a statement in the lead that says "terrorism is consistent with the tenets of Islam; Lewis believes that the phrase "Islamic terrorism" is apt, because of "the essentially political character which the Islamic religion has had from its very foundation and retains to the present day".[2]"


 * I think that this statement is way too strong for the lead, but if it isn't replaced, I guess we'll have to find a similarly strong statement for the lead of Christian terrorism. Sigh. I'd prefer the old text to be brought back. Wikipedia has to be neutral here, and can't be seen to be favouring Christianity over Islam. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 10:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "I guess we'll have to find a similarly strong statement for the lead of Christian terrorism".
 * Absolutely not. We'll have to find the fitting definition for either phenomenon, not necessarily one that makes things seem equal. Str1977 (talk) 13:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The point of including Juergenmeyer's definition in the lead is that he is a very notable expert in religious terrorism. Some Serb's certainly do believe that being bombed by American planes classed as state terrorism. Juergenmeyer says that the only people in a position to accurately determine if they're being terrorised by some action are the people themselves. This is completely in line with Wikipedia WP:TERRORIST which states that such statements should be clearly attributed to the person making them. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 11:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I find it irrelevant in this article, Chris. It belongs to religious terrorism or terrorism, but not here. It had occurred to me to separate those paragraphs from the opening, into an opening section entitled "Islamic" terrorism, because it is addressing terminology rather than the phenomenon. What do you think? DBaba (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There's a section Criticism of the term "Islamic Terrorism". It would seem to be an appropriate section for the text (possibly renamed to drop the "criticism" if Lewis' quote is included), but I agree that the term itself is controversial and discussion around the term itself is appropriate at the beginning of the article, not buried 15 pages down. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead section
The new lead section is in violation of WP:LEAD policy

"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, " - BoogaLouie (talk) 19:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The accusations against Bernard Lewis and wisdom of Jamal Nassar can go elsewhere in the article but not in the lead. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

We need context - such as some idea how much of world terrorism is Islamic terrorism - we need to include some notable islamist terrorist acts and we need some of the most notable controversies --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed lead
Islamic terrorism (also known as Islamist terrorism or Jihadist terrorism) is religious terrorism by those whose motivations are rooted in their interpretations of Islam. This form of terrorism is an outgrowth of political conviction, which the perpetrator believes to be a religious duty, owing to her or his interpretation of Islam.

Statistics gathered for 2005 by the National Counterterrorism Center of the United States resulted in their claim that Islamic terrorism was responsible for approximately 25% of all terrorism fatalities worldwide, and a majority of the fatalities for which responsibility could be conclusively determined Terrorist acts have included airline hijacking, beheading, kidnapping, assassination, roadside bombing, suicide bombing, and occasionally rape.

One of the most notable Islamic terrorist campaigns was the 9/11 attack on the United States. Other prominent Islamist attacks have occurred in India, Israel, France, Russia and China. France was the focus of terrorism in the mid 1990s from the Algerian civil war. Russia faced terrorist attacks stemming from its involvement in Chechnya. In 1997 the Chinese government set up the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation to combat radical Islamic movements in Central Asia.

Islamic terrorist groups often refer to their actions as jihad (struggle). Self-proclaimed sentences of punishment, sometimes issued as threats, including death threats, often come in the form of fatwas (Islamic legal judgments). Both Muslims and non-Muslims have been among the targets and victims, but threats against Muslims are often issued as takfir (a declaration that a person, group, institution that describes itself as Muslim is in fact not). This is an implicit death threat as the punishment for apostasy in Islam is death under Sharia law.

The controversies surrounding the subject include: whether the motivation of the terrorists or alleged terrorists is self-defense or offensive expansion, national self-determination or Islamic supremacy; what targets of the terrorists or alleged terrorists are noncombatants; whether Islam condones, or sometime condones terrorism; whether some attacks described as Islamic terrorism are merely terrorist acts committed by Muslims; how much support there is in the Muslim world for what kinds of Islamic terrorism; whether the Arab-Israeli Conflict is the root of Islamic terrorism, or simply one cause.

DBaba change
Better than before, although I'd prefer we just deleted the heading Overview --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion without giving reasons
This deletion of a whole passage by User:Excelsoft (who did not bother to state any reason) seems to have escaped scrutiny. It would be better to restore the passage and discuss the matter before deciding about a deletion.--84.167.168.234 (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

POV tag
Any particular reason this is still up? I know this is a contentious article, but it doesn't appear that there's been any recent discussion about this tag and why it should or should not be here--i.e., whether the article is actually POV. --Deusnoctum (talk) 04:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

"Wrong interpretation of Islam"
Line 10 says "owing to a wrong interpretation of Islam". Surely thats a bit POV? Cornishman5040 (talk) 14:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It certainly is. I deleted the sentence --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible GFDL violation in a published book
If you are an author of this article, you may be interested Village pump (miscellaneous) (permanent link) as it's possible someone has used your contributions in violation of the GFDL (or at least may have plagiarised your work) Nil Einne (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Organizations and acts
I've added a fact tag to the section as not everything is sourced. Generally, I'll wait 3-4 weeks before removing content (by either deleting it, or moving it to the talk page).

Please note sources are required not just for the facts listed, but also for categorizing these organizations as "Islamic terrorist". Categorizing an organization as only "Islamic" or only "terrorist" is not enough. It must be "Islamic terrorist".Bless sins (talk) 03:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I assume you mean it must be both Islamic and Terrorist, but not necessarily that phrasing? — BQZip01 —  talk 21:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Almost. The reliable source must call it both Islamic and terrorist. Also, WP:SYNTH is to be minded, when finding sources. Ideally he source should list it as "Islamic terrorist", but there are other ways of phrasing this as well.Bless sins (talk) 11:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I would again like to iterate, that sources for some sections haven't been provided. Of the sources that are provided, some are either unreliable, or do not call the organization both "Islamic" and "terrorist".Bless sins (talk) 18:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Quote
Can someone provide the full quote from this source: Netanyahu, Benjamin. Terrorism: How The West Can Win. 1987, page 66.

Also, can someone explain why we are using a book edited by the former Israeli prime minister, and not using Lewis' works directly? Finally I found a document that seems to contradict the quotation of the above source (as it is used in the article). In particular it says: "there is nothing in Islam as a religion that is especially conducive to terrorism...Islamic terrorism as practiced today is essentially an importation from the West."Bless sins (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a book of about 39 essays by 39 authors - George Schltz, Daniel Moynihan, Wolfgang Fikentscher, etc.
 * It starts out: "Why do we speak of Islamic terrorist? When we speak of the Tupamaros, Montaneros, and other exotically named gorups in Latin America, we do not speak of them as Catholic terrorists or talk of terrorism in Catholic countries, nor do we use similar denominational descriptions for terrorist groups in Europe.
 * "Why Islam? Is it because, as has at times been stated of late, Islam as a religion is particularly conducive to terrorism or even tolerant of terrorism?
 * "I think one may affirm without hesitation that this is not so. ...
 * "Nevertheless, it is appropriate to use Islam as a term of definition and classification in discussing present-day terrorism for two reasons.
 * "The first is the essentially political character which the Islamic religion has had from its very foundation and retains to the present day.... --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Umm why did you remove the quote I found in New York Times?
 * Secondly you still haven't concerned my concerns about a book edited by a former Israeli prime minister. I mean we won't use a book edited by Ahmedinejad to describe Jewish history, will we?Bless sins (talk) 06:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please provide the full quote, without any "...", on the talk page.Bless sins (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to have trouble assuming good faith. The book contains a five page essay by a notable source of direct relevance to issue of whether the term Islamic Terrorism should be used. I think you will have to come up with another reason to censor it besides the editor of the book was a former Israeli Prime Minister. No, I will not provide more quotes. This is an unreasonable demand and waste of time. Have a nice day :-) --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason I want the full quote is that your claims seem to clash with those published by the NYT coverage of the book (link posted above). That gives me reason to doubt your understanding (though not your honesty) of the content in question.Bless sins (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Some irrelevant sources
I'm removing the following sources:
 * It doesn't mention "terrorism", much less "Islamic terrorism".
 * Again no mention of "Islamic terrorism". The only person using the word "terror" was Hamas - they were condemning this act.
 * While the source does mention terrorism in connection to Al-Qaeda it doesn't do so in connection to acid throwing. More importantly it doesn't blame "Islamic terrorism" for it.Bless sins (talk) 06:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry this is censorship. These sources are very relevent. They are talking about attacks on civilians motivated by percieved devotion to Islamic law. I'm going to have to rvt. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "by percieved devotion to Islamic law" None of the sources blames Islamic law for the attacks.
 * Secondly, none of the sources call the acts as terrorism.Bless sins (talk) 15:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with BoogaLouie. This type of censorship and wikilawyering is unacceptable. YahelGuhan  ( talk ) 07:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yahel, please explain how your perspective is at all in line with WP:V? If there is no mention of Islamic terrorism, or "terrorism" of any kind, then the inferences required here constitute WP:OR.  This entry is not called Threats of violence based upon extremist interpretations of Islamic Law.  Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 13:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (Please see below). I think this issue needs to be discuss further.
 * If enforcement of Islamic law is a an integral part of Islamism and threat of violence is an integral part of terrorism, how far can we go in deleting any source that does not include the correct buzz word(s)/phrase?
 * Would you, for example, delete a criticism of someone from a criticism section because the critic in question does not use the word criticism? If there is a news report of a bombing and a self-identified Islamic group takes credit for it (and law enforcement agree they are the likely culprit) but the report does not include the word Islamic terrorism, should that report be excluded from an article (this article) on Islamic Terrorism?  --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Those stories are very tenuously connected to this subject matter at best. Please review: Words_to_avoid.  The comparison to "criticism" is entirely apples to oranges, and this is in a category of phrases that is particularly sensitive, requiring particularly stringent sourcing and verification standards.  Lets at least apply the ones we have.  I'll ask you again how you are able to read WP:V in a way that supports these sources in this entry.PelleSmith (talk) 15:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This issue was posted here: Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research.Bless sins (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Islamic terrorism
Request for comment:

Here the situation: I've added a subsection Facial mutilation about throwing attacking women's faces with acid and sharp objects, etc. in retaliation for those women's "immodest" dress. Bless sins has deleted it because none of the articles use the words "Islamic Terrorism" and so to call it such is OR. Talk:Islamic terrorism

I've encountered this issue before and am wondering if it isn't setting the bar a bit high for what can be used in an article. It seems that many legitimate sources of information will not spell out the word or phrase of an article for any number of reasons - too obvious, too unpopular, etc. For example, would we delete sources from a criticism section of someone if the source did not use the word "criticism" but only attacked that someone for being incompetent, in error, a bad person, etc.?

The article lead says "Islamic terrorism (also known as Islamist terrorism or Jihadist terrorism) is religious terrorism by those whose motivations are rooted in their interpretations of Islam.[1]" There can't be much doubt that throwing acid in the face of someone is intended to instill fear or terror, and there is little question that the motivation of actors is adherance to Islam, even if the sources don't include Quran quotes and such. --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As per my comment above. Please see Words to avoid in conjunction with our basic guidelines for verification WP:V.  "Terrorism" is a word to avoid, and it is rather obvious that when we use it we must at the very least adhere strictly to sourcing policies.  No argument has been made to counter these basic, available, and clear guidelines.  This RfC implies that there is ambiguity here when there simply is not.  Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 15:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You may know Wikipedia rules and regulations better than I, but ... goll darn it, doesn't this run the risk of absurdity??? We can't call throwing-acid-in-people's-faces-to-intimidate them-into-doing-something terrorism because the acid-throwers are actually "freedom fighters"??? Or freedom fighters in some people's eyes??? It's making "intrinsically negative connotations"?? What sense does that make??  -BoogaLouie (talk) 17:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No one is calling them "freedom fighters". If someone is, tell me, and I'll oppose the user.Bless sins (talk) 17:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I was following the line "one mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" but on rereading the Words to avoid I see it says no such thing. So I will ask: doesn't saying: We can't call throwing-acid-in-people's-faces-to-intimidate them-into-doing-something terrorism because it's making "intrinsically negative connotations",  run the risk of absurdity???


 * Agree with PelleSmith. That the acts are "terrorist" is your opinion only. It may also be the opinion of various unreliable sources on the internet. But unless, the allegation of terrorism is made by reliable sources, we can't include it. Finally, the terrorism has to be "Islamic". Non-Islamic terrorism doesn't belong in this article.Bless sins (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Would this be considered "Jewish terrorism"?--Goon Noot (talk) 17:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Because there is no mention of "terrorism", no. But I see your point. Hopefully this discussion will result in a consensus in which we don't go accusing Muslims and Jews of terrorism every time a member of their respective faith does something violent.Bless sins (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "every time a member of their respective faith does something violent"? These are not just any old violent act, they are acts
 * 1) to instill fear, i.e. to terrorize
 * 2) that have a religious motivation.
 * They are Religious Terrorism
 * The difference is the term "Jewish Terrorism" has not come into common english language parlance because there have not been enough cases of it and especially not against non-Jews. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What on earth are you talking about? First of all, if "Islamic terrorism" is such a common expression then it should be even easier to find articles that actually use it.  On top of this, we don't decide that action X by religious group A is terrorism when action X by religious group Y is not simply because terrorism by religious group X has been more noteworthy in the last decade.  How you decided that this was a just and NPOV way to write an encyclopedia I have no idea.  I'm actually still confused about what your point was with that.  The reason why we need WP:V and why we need to take good care with it is because these terms are contentious.  Please feel free, as I've asked several times already, to make an argument that goes with as opposed to against our policies.  Until that time all you're doing is blowing POV pushing smoke up our collective ... Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 19:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No. They are both terrorism. My remark is that people don't talk about Jewish Terrorism, or at least don't talk about it nearly as much (there is a Zionist political violence article in wikipedia but not one entitled Jewish Terrorism, for example), not because it doesn't exist, but because a critical mass of Jewish Terrorist attacks that would start people using that phrase has not occured. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What you have hit on is neither an academic distinction nor a "popular" one, but a matter of very politicized polemics. If you really want to start digging in that horrible barrel of nonsense we can, but I assure you it wont help your POV.  The reason we have Zionist "political violence" on the one hand and Islamic "terrorism" on the other is completely due to the successful lobbying of certain POVs and the unsuccessful lobbying of others.  If you wish to address this problem, and it is a problem, then I welcome it, but I have a feeling that you don't think it is a problem at all.  All of this is immaterial to the current problem of course, which you are still unable to address through policy.  Do you have a point here that relates to actual policy?  Are we done yet or what?PelleSmith (talk) 23:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That is your original research.Bless sins (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Wouldnt That be a religious Belief? Electrical <sup style="color:gold;background:Black">Vandilize Me  20:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello all. I am commenting here because there is a dispute listed requesting for a third opinion. After reading the article and the section of the talk page, it is my conclusion that the section "Facial Mutilation" should not be part of this text. By reading the article and how it lists what is commonly understood as terror events, it was clear to me that mentioning facial mutilation is off-topic. If the sources mentioned do not characterize this as terrorism, they don't do it because it is too obvious or unpopular as BoogaLouie mentioned, but probably because they have no basis to support such categorization. I also don't think that the argument of "words to avoid" brought by PelleSmith has any relevance to this dispute, since this is not about avoiding the term "terrorism", but it is about if facial mutilation should be included here or not. On a side note, I believe that this subject is relevant for wikipedia, but not for this artice. A suggestion would be to find another place more suitable or create an article.Mlonguin (talk) 00:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If this isn't about avoiding the word terrorism then why not just call facial mutilation "terrorism"? The whole point of that guideline is to be extra cautious when applying those types of words, which means entries about types of "terrorism" better have very good verification.   I'm not sure you actually disagree with my point.  If there is "no basis for such categorization," then it would be a violation of WP:V to claim that it is "terrorism"--that in fact was and is my main point.  The "words to avoid" bit just makes this even more important, since we're not simply talking about miscategorizing something as a "fruit" when it is a "vegetable".  I am not arguing that that it is because of the words to avoid guideline that we should not include the text here, but only that since we need to be extra cautious with words like "terrorism" and the claim doesn't meet our standards of verification, it is most certainly out.  Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 02:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm torn here. I can find a few references to fundamentalist terrorist/militant tanzeems doing this, but am not sure about the degree of prominence. Here a prominent researcher on Central Asia describes a "little-known militant group" in Kashmir which achieved prominence after a fatwa against unveiling that they implemented through facial mutilation: . Orhan Pamuk has called this a manifestation of terrorism, according to a quote here: Here, again in the Kashmiri context, prominent commentator on secularization Ram Puniyani describes it as an act conducted by terrorists:  There are a several references to Hekmatyar, who became notorious in the 1970s for this - his status as a terrorist is disputed. It is, however, true that while this is something that terrorists seem to do, I can't find any explicit references to it as a form of terrorism. -- Relata refero (disp.) 12:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Relata, it may in fact be the case that "terrorists" have employed these tactics in various settings, but the present issue is mostly one of poor sourcing. However, should good sources be produced, this issue also needs to be weighted and handled appropriately.  For instance BoogaLouie's "facial mutilation" section was twice as long as the others: "Bombings", "Hijackings" and "Kidnappings and Executions".  In terms of the intimidation of and physical violence against Muslim women by Islamist groups in these contexts is facial mutilation notably set apart, or is it just an example so disturbing as to prove a sensationalist point?  The sources presented by Booga make the latter seem more than likely, but I'm no expert in this.  Are these forms of "intimidation" always an example of "terrorism" or are there other more accurate terms to use here?  One danger here, in not being clear with our use of the term terrorism is two fold.  We don't want to imply that all those deemed to be "terrorists" employ facial mutilation, and we certainly don't want to imply that all conservative Muslims who support a certain dress code would be willing to terrorize women in this capacity to achieve such an end.  I fear that these two implications were much to the point of adding this section in the first place, and should well sourced information about facial mutilation, or other forms of violence against women, go back into the entry this has to be dealt with in an adequate manner.PelleSmith (talk) 13:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree absolutely. -- Relata refero (disp.) 13:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to defend myself.
 * BoogaLouie's "facial mutilation" section was twice as long as the others: "Bombings", "Hijackings" and "Kidnappings and Executions".  It is long but so are many other sections before being forked off. When you, PelleSmith, complained that the examples I provided were "very tenuously connected to this subject matter at best," I thought it a good idea to find some more to see if those might satisfy. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamic_terrorism&action=edit&section=47
 * In terms of the intimidation of and physical violence against Muslim women by Islamist groups in these contexts is facial mutilation notably set apart, or is it just an example so disturbing as to prove a sensationalist point? The attacks I have heard about involve acid and sharp implements on women's faces. I have not heard of less scary means of intimdation like clubbings. If there is a consensus to change the title to Physical attacks I will make no complaint.
 * We don't want to imply that all those deemed to be "terrorists" employ facial mutilation, and we certainly don't want to imply that all conservative Muslims who support a certain dress code would be willing to terrorize women in this capacity to achieve such an end.' Where is that implied? Does the article imply that terrorists who do car bombings, also must do kidnappings and executions? How does what I have written imply that anyone who is for hijab also advocates attacking women who don't cover? If so couldn't that error be corrected instead of deleting the section? --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Booga, first of all there is a basic notability issue at stake. The current sections discuss highly notable tactics employed by terrorists.  It isn't implied that they all do each of those things, but all of those tactics happen with frequency and have been employed during notable events of terrorism.  Nothing has been presented to bolster the fact that facial mutilation (though it probably occurs) is particularly notable. The references you provided pretty much only include rather general stories of this happening--some of these stories even include phrases like "had a reputation" and "is reported to have claimed".  The logical inference from your presentation is that this "tactic" is as notable as the others, in fact doubling its size makes this seem even more likely.  We have policies regarding this, notably WP:UNDUE.  On the other point it needs to be noted that the type of narrative you added for "facial mutilation" is quite different from those addressing the notable tactics already listed.  In those sections physical violence is not intricately tied together with beliefs that may be to a lesser extent shared by a much larger majority who would not resort to physical violence.  The facial mutliation section highlights the reasons for mutilation, female immodesty.  No where did you make an attempt to differentiate between non-violent conservative belief and the violence of Islamists, something made necessary by the fact that the section discusses the ideological premise underlying the tactic as much, if not more so, than the tactic itself.  The other discussions of tactics are about the tactics themselves, and not "why" the tactics are being employed.  Though you never made the connection explicitly (and perhaps didn't intend the connection to be made implicitly), its not unreasonable for someone to condemn all conservative belief about immodesty based upon the false idea that it naturally leads to physical violence and terrorism (though there may be other reasons to condemn them violence or not).  This would be like harping on the pro-life beliefs of an abortion doctor killer, so as to imply that the beliefs themselves, which are adhered to by millions of non-violent people, had some causal connection to his violence.  Whether you intended this or not is immaterial, since it is a very obvious effect of your narrative.PelleSmith (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you have a point in that there is little by way of academic or in depth study about the problem of attacks on women's faces by islamic terrorists - at least that I've seen so far. I propose the subsection is broadened and its name changed to Physical attacks (see source Caryle Murphy below). I also propose that the subsection be as short or shorter than the other tactics subsections to avoid undue weight.
 * As for some of your other points:
 * phrases lacking clear cut specificity like: "is reported to have claimed," and a group "had a reputation."
 * The source said "claimed", I said "is reported". I used that language to make it extra NPOV.
 * The group that "had a reputation" is al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya group. Here is another report with much more information from a book about Islam in Egypt (Caryle Murphy, Passion for Islam : shaping the modern Middle East : the Egyptian experience., Scribner, 2002 who got her information from Al Ahram Weekly, November 18, 1993, "Summary of report by the Egyptian Shura" (the upper house of parliament)). In the 1970s and 1980s at Cairo University, the group created a Shari'ah Muslim community and shut down theater, poetry readings, cinema, and music programs on the grounds that they brought men and women together and distracted people from religious activities...
 * ... couples were physically attacked for violations of upright Islamic morals; films could not be shown; concerts and evening dance could not be held ... All artistic and cinematic exhibitions were considered `provocations against the jama'at` which were shut down by Islamists wielding iron bars.
 * As far as "In those sections physical violence is not intricately tied together with beliefs....", I'm not sure that it's true that the tactic of suicide/homocide bombings or massive attacks are not tied to belief as 1) the number of suicide/homocide bombings has increased dramatically under jihadi movement and there is evidence that this is connected to belief in the 73 or so virgins rewarded to jihad shahids in heaven; 2) statements such as those by Zawahiri that the 9/11 bombing "harm[ed] America as no one has harmed it throughout its history” (Zawahiri) suggest that the bombing was done not only to stop (percieved) injustice but to humble the unbelievers.
 * But if it is true that the people who throw acid at women's faces do so because believe women's faces should be covered, why does that mean we shouldn't have a section or an article on it?
 * "No where did you make an attempt to differentiate between non-violent conservative belief and the violence of Islamists." Can't that be handled by starting out the subsection "Some Islamists have been accused of attacking or threating to attack ...."? Many Muslims believe there is a war against Islam by America and its allies but only a few Muslims are involved in bombing, yet the article does not have a lot of verbage "differentiating" between the two groups. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

At this point I see two solutions: Which solution would you opt for BoogaLouie?Bless sins (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * keep the acid attacks out, as they are not terrorism.
 * rename the article to "Militant Islamism" and thus include the acid attacks in a neutral manner as pointed out by editors above.
 * Throwing acid in poeple's faces is militancy not terrorism .... hmmmm I'll have to think about that one. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It can also be called "Political violence", per "Palestinian political violence" and "Zionist political violence".Bless sins (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm commenting as a third party, and I think I'm coming in late. Did I miss something?  When was it concluded that throwing acid in women's faces was not terrorism?  The wiki page on terrorism defines it as "violence against civilians to achieve political or ideological objectives by creating fear."  I really don't understand how someone could say this is not terrorism.  I understand the hesitance in using such a politically charged word but in such an obvious example calling it "political violence" seems contrarian to me.  Along the same lines, the dispute over whether or not to call those who commit this type of violence "terrorists" is ridiculous.  Objectivity is not the lack of an opinion.  What if they were eating babies or something as far on the bad spectrum as one can imagine?  Would we call them "carnivorous militants"?  Additionally, calling them "militants" is almost as bad as "terrorist" since the word's use is becoming more and more frequent and the association between it and deplorable violence is becoming stronger, as happened with "terrorist".


 * I think there was a strong argument made about WP:NOTE. However, since this is an article specifically about Islamic Terrorism, I don't think it would be fair to go without mentioning it or moving it to another article.  An article entirely devoted to this would violate WP:NOTE even more in my opinion.  I think the overall objective in all articles is to explain so that the reader is as informed as the writer (or close to it).  Having looked at the section on "Tactics", the other 3 subsections seem too short.  The passage for "Hijackings" is only one sentence long!  Additionally, "Bombings" has its own article, so comparing the paragraph that is really only a desciption of that article to something that I believe should NOT be its own article is not fair.


 * I think the question of prevalence is the most damaging with regards to inclusion. If it is only a few occurences involving a few people, it is not fair to include it with other common terrorist tactics.  Though, that leads to the question of where to draw the line.  How common does it have to be to include?  What percent of attacks?  I am not rejecting inclusion, but if it is difficult to find material about this, it just plain may not be significant enough.


 * I think I may have missed some points...but I hope that helps. AzureFury (talk) 07:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue here seems to be verification, or lack thereof. If there is a shortage of sources directly connecting the issue of facial mutilation to the topic of the article, then it constitutes original research. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   20:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Just an extra voice from the RfC: Acid throwing doesn'z seem like terrorism to me. No more than female circumcision, which can also be religiously motivated. Everything bad done in the name of religion does not automatically become terrorism. This seems on too small a scale, it is not anything that could cause political change.Yobmod (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems like there's quite a difference. Acid throwing is to instill fear (terror isn't too strong a word) to do don hijab. Female circumcision may or may not be against the girl/woman's will, usually not from what I've read. An equivalent act might be throwing acid in a woman's face to frighten her into being circumcized. --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I know this discussion is closed, but I just found this article: Acid attack, if anyone's interested.  Azure Fury  (talk | contribs) 13:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit plz
Al-Qaeda in Iraq. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

OR
Please don't add groups to this article, where the source doesn't call them "Islamic terrorist".


 * The Turkish Hezbollah is one example: the source doesn't call it "Islamic terrorist". If it does please provide the quote.Bless sins (talk) 19:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/hizbullah-t.htm the only other source in the paragraph, very easy to find if you want to find it! --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Regarding the AIG: this source doesn't refer to it as "Islamic terrorist". The other source is "Kepel, Gilles, Jihad, (2003)". Cna I get more details about the source? Is it "Jihad : expansion et déclin de l'islamisme"? If yes, what's the page number, so I can verify the source.Bless sins (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Utter nonsense. The article makes it perfectly clear that it views turkish Hezbollah as an islamic terrorist organization.  YahelGuhan  ( talk ) 06:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Provide the quote please, as clearly I don't see the article calling the organization as "Islamic terrorist" or with any such synonym.Bless sins (talk) 20:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This content will be removed again because it has been restored without a proper source. Please use the talk page before re-adding it.Bless sins (talk) 00:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

2008 Requested move
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following discussion is an archived discussion 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 proposal was no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 04:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I have requested this article be renamed. Wikipedia should not conflate the word "Islamic" with "Islamist." Sources using the term "Islamist" include the 9/11 Commission Report, which also describes what it means. Lawrence Wright and other experts also use the term. The Wikipedia article is about Islamist terrorism, and should be properly named as such. --Aude (talk) 06:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Survey

 * Oppose. The common name for the topic is Islamic terrorism. Andrewa (talk) 11:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Where is that Andrew? -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">fayssal  - <font style="background: gold">Wiki me up®  11:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Throughout the English-speaking world. For example, 670,000 Google hits for Islamic terrorism vs 185,000 for Islamist terrorism (your results may differ according to your connection and/or locality). Andrewa (talk) 12:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And when most Americans use the term kleenex they simply mean tissue paper but that doesn't mean that all tissue paper is in fact kleenex. Then there is the fisher cat which is in fact not a cat at all but a marten.  Of course it's good friend the dolphin fish isn't a dolphin either.  The google argument is entirely lacking.  If we agree that the most accurate term is "Islamist terrorism" but that the much more generic "Islamic terrorism" has become more popular then the appropriate way to deal with it is renaming to Islamist terrorism, redirecting "Islamic terrorism" to this page and writing a first sentence of the lead similar to the one on Mahimahi which would instead of saying that it is commonly called the dolphin fish say that Islamist terrorism is commonly referred to as Islamic terrorism.  If there is an accuracy issue we shouldn't look to the mistakes of colloquial speech as our guide.PelleSmith (talk) 13:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's logical, but no change of vote at this stage, see below for why. Andrewa (talk) 20:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Islamist terrorism is more neutral. -- Seyyed(t-c) 15:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support for same reasons as pelleshmith and seyyed. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per myself and all those who want to move.PelleSmith (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Although I usually agree with Andrewa, I concur that the article discusses a precise topic which can be referred to as "Islamist" (as supported by sources), not a more general topic that may have a different common name. Interesting argument.Dekimasu よ! 04:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Cont'd: The American Heritage Dictionary describes Islamism as "An Islamic revivalist movement, often characterized by moral conservatism, literalism, and the attempt to implement Islamic values in all spheres of life." This appears to fulfill the requirements for specificity set forth by Naming conventions (precision). Dekimasu よ! 05:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - it's a much more sensible alternative to "Islamic terrorism", which may be viewed as a misnomer. As I've said before, even better IMO would be 'Muslim terrorism' so as to conform with Jewish terrorism and Christian terrorism. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   11:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support As per Itaqallah Lord of Moria   Talk   Contribs  14:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose I fail to see a compelling reason to move the article. Per Andrew, this is the most common name. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment You may of course do as you will, but I'd like to note that you seem to have changed your mind from earlier when you wrote: "I will support the move request on the condition that no-one can reasonably argue with your assertion that 'The Wikipedia article is about Islamist terrorism'". Andrewa has in fact admitted that this entry is more precisely specifically about "Islamist terrorism", but objects because apparently Islamist terrorism is more commonly called Islamic terrorism.  Where is the reasonable argument against the assertion that this is about Islamist terrorism?   Where is the "one instance of Islamic-but-not-Islamist terrorism ... on this page"?PelleSmith (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I missed that; would you mind copy-pasting Andrew's entire thread where he admitted the article is more precisely about Islamist terrorism? Thank you. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I read what he wrote too liberally. Perhaps he wasn't actually endorsing the idea of specificity as a fact.  Either way Andrewa's argument is not substantive - in that he has not argued substantively that the entry is not about Islamist terrorism but about something conceptually broader.  He has simply claimed that Islamic terrorism is the most common term to describe the entry's contents.  In other words he has provided no instance of "Islamic but not Islamist" terrorism.  No one has.  Again, you are welcome to do as you please, but the criteria you asked for was not filled.PelleSmith (talk) 21:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. See Christian terrorism (which is shockingly detailed...) and Jewish terrorism. Where's Buddhist terrorism and Hindu terrorism? Surely we can scrounge up something? (N.B. that was not a suggestion.) Srnec (talk) 04:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As per policy, the name should be left as Islamic terrorism. 'Muslim terrorism' is not the best choice, because it may refer to terrorism committed by Muslims, but not in the name of Islam. 'Islamist terrorism' is not the best choice, because it is possible that terrorism may be committed in the name of Islam but not for Islamist goals. 'Islamic terrorism' is the term in common usage and appropriately defines the subject.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 01:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No example has been given in this discussion of any terrorism that is Islamic but not Islamist, so I continue to fail to understand the logic of that argument.PelleSmith (talk) 01:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. All Islamist terrorism is inherently Islamic terrorism, and "Islamic terrorism" is the term in common usage which is the determinant for naming articles as per Wikipedia policy.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 10:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
From the survey above:

''And when most Americans use the term kleenex they simply mean tissue paper but that doesn't mean that all tissue paper is in fact kleenex. Then there is the fisher cat which is in fact not a cat at all but a marten. Of course it's good friend the dolphin fish isn't a dolphin either. The google argument is entirely lacking. If we agree that the most accurate term is "Islamist terrorism" but that the much more generic "Islamic terrorism" has become more popular then the appropriate way to deal with it is renaming to Islamist terrorism, redirecting "Islamic terrorism" to this page and writing a first sentence of the lead similar to the one on Mahimahi which would instead of saying that it is commonly called the dolphin fish say that Islamist terrorism is commonly referred to as Islamic terrorism. If there is an accuracy issue we shouldn't look to the mistakes of colloquial speech as our guide.PelleSmith (talk) 13:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)''

This can be justified in terms of policy if we see it as following WP:IAR rather than WP:NC. But is the proposal really an improvement? I'm unconvinced. In preferring that the title be specific (they're both accurate) as opposed to generic, what we're doing is to put some content - the information that all Islamic terrorists are Islamist terrorists - into the page title. This is part of a campaign to promote the use of the more specific term.

And this campaign has merit. But it's a big policy shift if we support it in this way. What I'd prefer is to have a redirect from Islamist terrorist, and a clear article lead that points out that the Islamic terrorism as described in the article stems from a particular faction, rather than from all of Islam.

Another possibility would be to have two articles, one at Islamic terrorism and the main one at Islamist terrorism. This is for example what is done in tree of life articles when a genus is represented by only one species. I think in this instance that this is not the right way to go, I just mention it because several of the generic vs specific examples given above seem to suggest it as a solution.

Disagree that the google argument is entirely lacking. Google is not God, certainly, but it's relevant. Andrewa (talk) 20:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * From the Oxford English Dictionary - Accuracy - "The state of being accurate; precision or exactness resulting from care; hence, precision, nicety, exactness, correctness." Accurate - "Of things and persons: Exact, precise, correct, as the result of care."  The claim is exactly that the phrase "Islamic terrorism" lacks precision and that the name change would be a careful employment of precision.  "Islamic terrorism" accurately reflects the imprecise colloquial usage, yes congratulations, but no one is disagreeing with this so your correction above is superfluous.  Also please note that the second rule of WP:NC is - Be precise when necessary.  This is not a new discussion on this page and the claim supporting the move has always been inline with this rule.  In other words this is not simply an issue of WP:IAR.PelleSmith (talk) 13:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This OED entry is listing alternative meanings. Both Islamic and Islamist are accurate in this context. Colloquial usage is what WP:NC specifies we should use (first rule), so if no one is disagreeing with this then there should be no support for the move in terms of this policy. We could still plead IAR. Disagree it is in any way imprecise in terms of WP:NC, rather I think that it is well known and accepted that Islamic terrorism usually refers to the current Islamist campaign. Agree that the question of whether this extra precision is necessary is relevant (second rule), and I see no reason to regard it as necessary.


 * Agree that this is not a new proposal. If this move fails, we should consider it as a candidate for Perennial proposals. Andrewa (talk) 17:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The OED is defining the term accuracy ... not "offering alternative meanings". Notable criticisms of the term "Islamic terrorism" (e.g. the main one mentioned in this entry) focus on the fact that the term is imprecise.  Islamic terrorism suggests various possible connections between the religion Islam and terrorism outside of those related to Islamism while in reality the form of terrorism described in this entry and practiced by those being called "Islamic terrorists" is specifically of an Islamist nature.  This makes some of us suggest we have an accuracy problem.  The logic of your argument would suggest other accurate alternatives as well like Human terrorism, Violent terrorism and/or Terrorist terrorism.  Precision lies at the heart of accuracy, whether you are willing to agree with the OED notwithstanding.  So the answer to the policy basis of the move is simply that you don't agree that precision is necessary in this circumstance?  The contentious nature of this term makes precision extremely necessary and I'd like to know on what grounds that perspective is incorrect.  In terms of this stubborn adherence to the first rule of WP:NC despite the second, I will point out that a Google search is not a reliable measure of the "common usage" of English terms, particularly in regards to terms that describe phenomena which usually surface in the various discourses of specific interest groups, themselves not representative of mass culture.  Now I clearly happen to think that this is immaterial given that precision should trump common usage in this instance regardless, but that doesn't change the fact that the Google argument establishes a very shaky foundation.PelleSmith (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for removing some of the personal attacks from the above. But it contains several more, and also a number of straw man arguments, which I don't think require an answer.


 * Yes, the OED is defining the term accuracy, but in doing this it is also offering alternative meanings. Both. That's the way the OED works.


 * Agree that Google is not proof of anything, but it is the only evidence yet presented of common usage. Very interested in any better evidence you can find.


 * I appreciate that you think that precision should trump common usage..., but I'm unsure of why you think this, as you've previously rejected an appeal to IAR. But thanks for some challenging arguments. And so far in the survey, they seem to be attracting more support than mine are! Andrewa (talk) 00:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have not nor will I present evidence to the contrary because as I stated I don't think colloquial usage should dictate the name in an instance where "precision is necessary". I have also explained why I believe it is necessary but you have not explained why it isn't.  I'm still waiting.  As to personal attacks without pointing them out to me I cannot know what you are referring to as I honestly and innocently don't see any.  Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 04:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I obviously can't force you to present evidence, but at the risk of argument from silence we need to act on the evidence we have, and it indicates that the common usage is the current title. So we're left with your opinion that it's vitally important to adopt a particular level of precision in the article title, versus a very clear official policy which says we should prefer the common name.


 * Stubborn is an example of a personal attack. Strongly suggest you read the relevant policy. Andrewa (talk) 14:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "Stubborn adherence" ... pretty nit-picky and dubiously an "attack" of any kind, but if you take offense to anything I've written then I'm happy to apologize - I am sorry. In regards to your presentation of the situation, I'm afraid it is not accurate to claim that your position is solidly in policy while ours is not.  WP:NC first states that the default standard is to go with common usage and follows immediately with the second rule which I have very clearly quoted already - be precise when necessary.  My issue with your Google search is that it does not even establish common usage in a reliable way, but my point about not presenting evidence to the contrary regards the fact that I don't think common usage is the issue here.  The default does not work when it is necessary to be precise.  WP:NC does not have one strict guideline to always use "common usage", and in this situation I and others have provided reasons why precision is necessary and why the term you claim is most common is not precise.  Do you have any argument countering this?  Why is precision not necessary?   Because if it is the rest of us are fully within policy.  Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 15:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * <--- Resetting indentation

Please read the policy on personal attacks to which I have linked above. It doesn't say what you're assuming. All I'm saying is that you are violating this policy.

So far as evidence is concerned, I think you have a choice... produce evidence or concede the point. If you regard the point as irrelevant anyway, then why not concede it? Then we can move on. Merely to criticise evidence that has been produced as weak while refusing to produce any better evidence is a waste of everyone's time.

I think that I have already answered this particular argument. Restating it seems another waste of time. The purpose of this discussion is to help the closing sysop to decide on a course of action in response to the move request; Anything that doesn't serve that purpose doesn't belong here. Andrewa (talk) 00:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Your accusation, your burden of proof. I've looked at the policy (in the past as well as right now) and see nothing that says that calling someone's adherence to something "stubborn" is a personal attack.  If you insist then please quote the appropriate language from the policy. On the other hand I apologized regardless so I fail to understand why a problem persists.


 * The policy is summarised Comment on content, not on the contributor. I certainly won't be invoking WP:DR over such a small breach, but I thought you should be reminded of the policy, particularly in view of the many other breaches most of which you quickly removed (thank you). Andrewa (talk) 04:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no evidence that suggests "Islamic terrorism" is not the common usage and I never claimed emphatically that it wasn't, I simply suggested that the Google method has several problems, especially in relation to terms like this which are blogged about by very specific interests groups that are not representative of the English speaking population and therefore skew the results rather heavily. Please stop asking for evidence that does not exist and that no one has claimed exists.  If you have already "answered" the argument as you claim then please, do me the favor of restating your answer, or linking to it since I clearly cannot see it.  Call me stupid, I don't care, but if I earnestly see no answer the nice thing to do is to repeat it.  I'll repeat the question - Why is precision not necessary? Thanks kindly.PelleSmith (talk) 03:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In case the rationale for precision is not clear I'll quote from 1) the entry itself and 2) from myself (but there are several more examples of this argument throughout this talk page history):
 * This argument is countered by Jamal Nassar and Karim H. Karim, who contend that, because there are over a billion adherents of the religion, the phenomenon is more precisely regarded as "Islamist terrorism"[1] or "militant Islamism",[9] because Islamism describes political ideologies rooted in interpretations of Islam.[1] In this vein, describing terrorism as "Islamic" may confirm "a prejudicial perspective of all things Islamic".
 * Islamic terrorism suggests various possible connections between the religion Islam and terrorism outside of those related to Islamism while in reality the form of terrorism described in this entry and practiced by those being called "Islamic terrorists" is specifically of an Islamist nature. This makes some of us suggest we have an accuracy problem.
 * So we are suggesting that precision is necessary because this is a contentious topic which requires sensitivity and clarity so as not to conflate Islamism with Islam, so as not to suggest some generically "Islamic" quality of this extremist militancy. So that is why some of us (myself at the very least) claim that precision is necessary.  Why is precision not necessary?PelleSmith (talk) 03:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Understood. The question seems to be, should these considerations outweigh the fundamental policy of preferring common usage in article titles? In view of the sensitive nature of the topic, I think it's even more important to adhere closely to the rules in this particular case. I fear that, should the move take place, the new title won't last long. But I could be wrong. Andrewa (talk) 04:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "Islamic terrorism" overrides and denies completely the fact that "Islamist terrorism" affects Muslims as well when Muslims themselves get targeted by islamist terrorism. The justification the violent Islamists use defines, accurately, their concept. Please note that I am not talking about sectarian violence but terrorist acts perpetrated against people of Muslim confession.
 * This OED entry is listing alternative meanings. Then why do we have to insist on the least grounded and most contentious one here? The point is... Islam and Islamism are not inherently alternative. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">fayssal  - <font style="background: gold">wiki  up®  01:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Your point escapes me. The definitions to which I was referring are of accuracy and accurate. They were quoted above by PelleSmith. Andrewa (talk) 14:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes that may be true but his first point shouldn't escape you and directly relates to our disagreement as it is another example of the inaccuracy of the present title.PelleSmith (talk) 15:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, I think this has already been answered. Andrewa (talk) 00:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Aude, are we quite sure that nothing on this page is Islamic terrorism but not Islamist terrorism? I will support the move request on the condition that no-one can reasonably argue with your assertion that "The Wikipedia article is about Islamist terrorism". If even one instance of Islamic-but-not-Islamist terrorism is on this page, it should not be moved. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a good question, and there's a wider one. In view of the wide range of beliefs reflected in the various branches of Christian terrorism, and the well-documented divisions within Islam, it's a bit surprising if Islamic terrorists are so uniform in their beliefs. This sort of speculation doesn't belong in the article of course, that would be WP:OR, but it might show us where to look for other forms of Islamic terrorism, to round out the article, or otherwise help us to confirm that all Islamic terrorism is Islamist, if indeed this is the case. Andrewa (talk) 04:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I personally prefer opting for "Muslim terrorism", as then the article topic correctly focuses on terrorism committed by Muslims (where their being Muslim is verifiably relevant) without any implied judgement (as with "Islamic") or the potential for too narrow a scope (as with "Islamist"). This also brings it in line with the articles on Jewish terrorism (which does not have the title "Judaic terrorism") and Christian terrorism. Thoughts? <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   11:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Good suggestion, and one that raises several issues. I'm uncertain as to how Islamic terrorism and Muslim terrorism differ in meaning. Andrewa (talk) 13:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Islamic is an adjective. The title "Islamic terrorism" connotes terrorism which is "Islamic", i.e. in conformity with Islam's rules and regulations... in the same way you'd say Islamic finance or Islamic etiquette for instance. That implication is obviously inappropriate here as it contains a judgement about Islam and terrorism. It's not, however, the intended meaning of what is covered in the article, which is terrorism committed by Muslims - the accurate title for which IMO is Muslim terrorism. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   13:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm... this seems to be based on linguistic prescription, ie trying to tell people how they should speak, rather than just accepting the way they do speak. naming conventions tend to reject this general approach as a form of advocacy, ie we don't try to reshape language to conform to a set of rules. We don't necessarily object to people trying to clean up English usage, but Wikipedia is not the place to do it. Andrewa (talk) 15:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * And I think this is getting very much to the heart of the matter. Yes, we want very much to avoid the implications to which you refer. But when the person in the street refers to Islamic terrorism, they are not necessarily making any such judgement.


 * So, the article naming policy has been designed to avoid them too, by explicitly stating that our article names reflect English usage, nothing more. If we violate this principle, and instead try to take account of the logic that you're suggesting (which the English speaker doesn't normally use when choosing their words) we then inject an implication that we've considered these arguments into every other article name. And it's very important not to do that.


 * That's getting a bit involved I know, but I think it's what is going on here. Andrewa (talk) 15:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding your first question, my answer was in response to you enquiring the difference in meaning between Muslim terrorism and Islamic terrorism; because there is a difference. Secondly, your argument is based on the premise that the term Islamic terrorism is an accepted and uncontested part of the English language (as opposed to a mere conjunction of two words). That's really not the case as evident from the article (even the first citation) itself as well as plenty of other reliable sources available (to list a few: ) which does suggest a degree of debate even within mainstream discourse. Thus, I feel this appeal to "the person on the street" is not quite convincing.  <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   17:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You've given a difference in grammar, but so far none in meaning.


 * No, it's not based on any such premise. Obviously it's not uncontested, there would be no discussion here if that were so. And there's a great variety in usage within the language, just as obviously. WP:NC reads in part Article naming should be easily recognizable by English speakers. All I'm claiming is that English speakers easily recognise the current article name. Andrewa (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it being argued that the article name I'm suggesting, Muslim terrorism, is not easily recognisable as to what will be covered in the article? <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   17:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly. It means the same thing as the current title, but many English speakers would wonder, what point is being made by using this unusual phrasing? Andrewa (talk) 22:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree there. I don't believe people would say "Why is the title Muslim terrorism? My google search tells me other names are more popular." I don't think that most people would even have a second thought about it were the title 'Muslim terrorism.' <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   18:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Whether or not people would think about it is immaterial. "Muslim terrorism" is not the most common name in English for the subject, and it has not argument for specificity, as does "Islamist terrorism". Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * ItaqAllah, I don't understand how "Muslim terrorism" lacks any implied judgement than "Islamic terrorism" may have. Were I Muslim, I could imagine taking some degree of offence at either one. Moreover, in the last source you provided above, one of the quoted writers shares my sentiment: "When they call it Islamic or Muslim terrorism I feel like I am being blamed..." Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Muslim terrorism implies nothing about whether the act is sanctioned by Islam or not, the same for which cannot be said about Islamic terrorism which does carry such implications, even if inadvertently. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   17:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this is a key point, and relevant to the whole discussion not just to the suggestion of Muslim terrorism as a potential article name. Does the phrasing Islamic terrorism really carry such implications when we use it as the title of an encyclopedia article? It doesn't for me, and I'm doubtful that it does for many English speakers, any more than using the phrase Christian terrorism carries any implication that the principles of Christianity in any way endorse terrorism. Certainly some would try to claim that the actions of Christian terrorists discredit Christianity generally, and they use this phrase to support this claim, but this is a propaganda technique, and we should avoid following their lead. Andrewa (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well it does to critics cited in the entry who make this claim specifically. What reliable and/or expert commentary on the matter are you citing here?  It also certainly does to the conservative anti-Muslim blogsphere that isn't satisfied with railing against Islamism but constantly makes the equation of Islamic extremism with the essential nature of Islam.  Itaqallah's point is one that seems to continue to escape your answers as well.  His argument is that the Christian, in Christian terrorism, does not refer to essential aspects of the religion but to the self-identifications of terrorists.  If that is true then Muslim is a much more analogous term than "Islamic".PelleSmith (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Andrewa, I think the comparison with Christian terrorism isn't quite valid. The reason being there aren't seperate adjectives when denoting the institution of Christendom and its followers. A more pertinent analogy is with Jewish terrorism. Which is not referred to as Judaic terrorism, even if it may have been carried out in the name of Judaism. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   18:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Itaqallah his basis for argument seems wholeheartedly valid. Lord of Moria   Talk   Contribs  14:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Islamic terrorism is the more accurate term based on the content of the article. Islamist terrorism is more specific, dealing with terrorism committed in the name of Islamism, which involves political motivations. Though such motivations are a major element of Islamic terrorism, it is still a subset. The sensitive issue at the crux of the naming dispute seems to be that some imagine that Islamic terrorism implies some inherent endorsement of terrorism within Islamic belief. However, just as the term teen suicide does not define an inherent characteristic of 'teenagers', neither does the term Islamic terrorism define 'Islam'.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 23:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The ideology section of the article, for example, is talking specifically about Islamism. The groups listed on this page are using terrorist tactics for political goals (often cast in name of Islam), and many of the organizations have roots or connections with the Muslim Brotherhood.  The only other possibly solution besides renaming the page would be to take all Islamist terrorism material out and put into a separate article, but than not much or anything would be left of this article.  As for citing the "Christian terrorism" article, perhaps it should be renamed more precisely as well, since such tactics are only utilized by extreme elements. The adjective "Islamic" should not be used here, and instead the more precise term "Islamist" should be used. --Aude (talk) 23:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. The first part under 'Ideology' indicates the views of Dale C. Eikmeier regarding ' Islamic terrorism' both in the paragraph, and the title of his referenced work. Islamist terrorism is a subset of Islamic terrorism, so there is no problem with this article containing information about Islamist terrorism. If all of the Islamist terrorism informatioin were removed from the article, most of the article, but not all, would be gone, and would therefore likely result in a later merge of the two articles anyway. Use of the term Islamic is appropriate in this article. See the last sentence of my previous comment above.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 00:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Checking the source, Eikmeier is actually specifically stating the tenets of Qutbism, which is a "radical strain of Islamist ideology" (according to our Wikipedia article) and "Qutbism is structured on a common foundation of puritan Islamist orientations" (according to Eikmeier). --Aude (talk) 01:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It makes no difference to the appropriate title of the article. All Islamist terrorism is Islamic terrorism even if no Islamic terrorism is not Islamist terrorism. If any number of Islamic terrorism events, including 0, are not Islamist terrorism, then Islamic terrorism is the correct title, because they are done in the name of Islam. The fact that such actions are repudiated by 'true Islam' does not change the intent of the purpetrators.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 10:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You are so right. Lets just rename the entry Terrorist terrorism or maybe Human terrorism.  Or better yet lets just call it Terrorism, oh wait that's already and entry and its distinct from Islamist terrorism because not all terrorism is Islamist terrorism even though all Islamist terrorism is in fact terrorism.  Get the point?PelleSmith (talk) 03:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Your allusion ignores scope by orders of magnitude. I appreciate the use of hyperbole, but its application does not apply.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 10:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Islamic is an adjective which means something in conformity with Islam. Islamic finance refers to economic transactions which conform to Islamic rules and guidelines. Islamic jurisprudence refers to legal theory in compliance with Islamic principles. Islamic etiquette refers to personal conduct in conformity with Islamic prescriptions. (Conversely, calling something unIslamic denotes that it violates Islamic rules/guidelines). Thus there is an intimate connection between something "Islam-ic" and Islam. On that basis, the title carries an inappropriate judgement about the topic (what is "Islamic" is often a matter of opinion). 'Muslim terrorism' clearly and unequivocally refers to Muslims who conduct terrorism in the name of religion, without any subtextual judgement. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   18:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "Islamic" does not mean "something in conformity with Islam". The OED gives "Of or pertaining to Islam; Muhammadan, Muslim." This has no value judgement attached to it about whether or not the subject is in conformity with Islam. "Islamic" can be used to describe anything that has anything to do with Islam. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The OED's entry may well be correct, but the scope encompasses more than that. Not to say the OED is wrong, but consider Wiktionary's entry: "Of, pertaining to, originating in, characteristic of, or deriving from Islam." That's because 'Islamic' can function as both a proper adjective (i.e. as with Japanese) and a common adjective (i.e. 'His behaviour was Islamic'). <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   19:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The Wiktionary entry is essentially the same as the OED's; there is still nothing indicating in conformity with Islam. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that's splitting hairs. "Terrorism originating from Islam", "Terrorism characteristic of Islam", "Terrorism derived from Islam" all are a terribly far cry from "Terrorism pertaining to Islam", and all contain an inherent presumption or judgement about a positive relationship between Islam and terrorism. <font color="#029DDD">ITAQALLAH   16:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Splitting hairs
This thread reminds me what I have read in an interview. Remember Tony Blair's TV statement that the 9/11 attackers were not "Islamic terrorists" but "terrorists plain and simple"? This politically correct (PC) statement is as grotesque as, let's imagine, Roosvelt declaring after Pearl Harbor that the attackers were not "Japanese airmen" but "airmen" plain and simple. The BS in today's PC Zeitgeist is beyond me (take note that I'm talking about academic folly, not of the editors of this article). But don't worry. I don't plan to edit this article or to post in this talk page anymore. —Cesar Tort 19:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion but I think the point being made here by Blair, many Muslims, and other allegedly PC followers is that to call the terrorism Islamic terrorism (as opposed to Islamist terrorism) implies the perps were following Islam, i.e. were doing something Islamically correct. ... and its rather important to make clear this is strongly disputed. It's what the perps believe. It's not what a great many Muslims believe.
 * The same can't be said about Japanese airmen attacking Pearl Harbor. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This statement is flawed. The stated implication ignores the meaning of the words. As was correctly indicated previously, "Islamic" means 'pertaining to Islam', not 'approved by Islam'. If someone talks about 'German criminals', it doesn't mean that Germany endorses crime. 'Muslim terrorism' is not the best choice, because it may refer to terrorism committed by Muslims, but not in the name of Islam. 'Islamist terrorism' is not the best choice, because it is possible that terrorism may be committed in the name of Islam but not for Islamist goals. The only reason for not using 'Islamic' is because some people falsely assume that the word suggests some Islamic endorsement of terrorism.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 09:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not one example of "Islamic terrorism" that is not Islamist has been offered here. We've seen this argument again and again without a shred of validation from actual evidence.  The reason not to use Islamic is because it isn't precise enough and may imply connections between Islam and terrorism that do not reflect the reality of the situation.  You're argument makes no sense if there is in fact no example of "Islamic but not Islamist" terrorism.  Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 00:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi PS. Curious to see you here. Please watch this video about basic grammar on this very subject. —Cesar Tort 04:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Cesar, my (unfavorable) views on Robert Spencer notwithstanding he is in fact not correct in his basic grammar lesson. When one refers to an Italian fascist one refers to an Italian who is in fact a fascist.  If his linguistic analogy were to the point he would not say "Islamic", since that word does not describe someone who belongs to the religious group, but he would instead refer to "a Muslim" ... who is a terrorist.  Italian fascist should translate to Muslim terrorist, not Islamic terrorist.  This in fact is Itaqallah's very point.  He seems to understand English grammar a bit better than Robert Spencer does.  Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 04:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I also note that in this video Spencer proceeds to make a much more nebulous link between "Islam" and terrorism, but simply blames Muslims for making this link themselves. Of course Islamist terrorists believe they are acting for the good of Islam, but we're not here to validate their minority POV, we're here to accurately describe a phenomenon for what it is.PelleSmith (talk) 05:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The commonsensical use of language makes me use expressions such as "Christian terrorism" (e.g., what the Christians did to Hypatia of Alexandria) or "Jewish terrorism" (e.g., what the Hebrews did as recounted in the Book of Joshua). Why on Earth we have no right to use a similar expression regarding Islamic terrorism? It just strikes me as splitting hairs in the best case or Newspeak in the worst. —Cesar Tort 06:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Cesar, you have every right to call it what you wish. The question is what is most informative as an entry title here on Wikipedia.  My suggestion is "Islamist terrorism", which is slightly less common in usage (according to a google search), but is more accurate.  Part of the suggestion would include redirecting the current title to that page and making it clear in the lead that it is also referred to as "Islamic terrorism".  In terms of your comparison "Jewish", and "Christian" may refer to the adherents (or simply people) and/or to the religion.  With Islam the situation is different because "Muslim" more properly refers to the adherent.  This means that when you label something "Islamic", its not quite the same as labeling it "Jewish", or "Christian".  In fact plug Jewish into the Wikipedia search and you get redirected to Jew and not to Judaism.   (Christian, of course needs no redirect because it is a noun already simply meaning an adherent to Christianity).  But, plug Islamic into the search engine and you get redirected to Islam and not to Muslim.  I think these redirects are absolutely correct, and are also a very keen example of exactly what Itaqallah is talking about.PelleSmith (talk) 19:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll leave this semantic discussion to the concerned parties. "Islamic" vs. "Islamist" was not my point, but the perils of Newspeak in many politically correct statements about Islam in our age. —Cesar Tort 20:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Takfir
The article states that "threats against Muslims are often issued as takfir (a declaration that a person, group or institution that describes itself as Muslim has in fact left Islam and thus is a traitor)," and includes mention of a few terrorist groups that have issued takfir. Given that Islamic terrorist groups demonstrate that they have "in fact left Islam" in the view of mainstream Muslims, have declarations of takfir been issued by mainstream Islam against those groups?-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 12:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Issuing takfir is actually a hallmark of extremists. Mainstream Muslims generally avoid such sentsitive topics, instead considering as Muslim all those who claim to be (with certain exceptions).Bless sins (talk) 16:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Jihadic terrorism
Jihadic terrorism is also used (20,000 results in Yahoo) and more right that "islamic" terrorism (not all the islamic people is terrorist; more, some are peacefull). Al Qaeda is Jihadic terrorism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.159.136.215 (talk • contribs)
 * The term "islamic terrorism" is offensive for the honest muslims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.145.201.52 (talk • contribs)

Jihad, Islamic, Islamist, Muslims murdering non-Muslims, regardless of interpretation they all stem from the same religion, Islam. Changing the name from Islamic to Islamist isn't going to alter anyone's view of who is actually perpetrating these acts be them good Muslims according to the Quar'an or bad Muslims according to the Quar'an. Causeofthejust (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

More information needed on "Army of the Righteous," please
This appears to be the self-ascribed moniker being used by the assailants in the late November, 2008 incidents in Mumbai, India. The relationship of these individuals to the Islamic terrorism entry may be helpful. 75.37.225.244 (talk) 12:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Islam or Islamism
Is this article about Islamic terrorism or Islamist terrorism. The reason being that the word "Islamic" refers to Islam, and "Islamist" refers to Islamism. The two are very obviously not the same.

Also, no one has been able to provide reliable sources that explicitly equate the two. So until then, this article will have to decide which terrorism is being referred to here.

If such a source can't be provided, one solution would be to rename the article "Islamic and Islamist terrorism".Bless sins (talk) 19:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * One of the sources, in fact, argues against calling "Islamist terrorism" as "Islamic terrorism":
 * "This chapter is titled Islamist terrorism rather than Islamic terrorism for a good reason. Islami is a religion with more than a billion adherents. It would be inappropriate to label the whole religion for the actions of a few."
 * Source: Nassar, Jamal R. Globalization and Terrorism: The Migration of Dreams and Nightmares. 2005, page 87.
 * The author of the source is Jamal Nassar, who is retired chair and professor in the Department of Political Science at Illinois State University. The book has also received positive reviews from scholars. Hence I take it to be a reliable source.Bless sins (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

And it seems strange to assert that this isn't an article about Islamist terrorism and then lead off with detail about the 9_11 events, which were perpetrated by members of Al-Qaida, an Islamist organisation. -- ZScarpia (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think too that we should not talk about Islamic terrorism because there is nothing in Islam that [unanimously] refers to the use of violence with the goal of promoting Islamic or political values while at the other side, islamism has political goals.
 * On the other end, I think you will not reach any consensus if you don't fuse this discussion with the ones about Jewish terrorism and Christian terrorism.
 * One suggestion, among many others, would be the wordings : political violence performed in the name of [x] where we can replace [x] by Islam, Judaism, Christianism, or...
 * That would respect the point of view of those who believes in the values of [x] but rejects the use of violence or terrorism.
 * Ceedjee (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello Ceedjee. You know, I have the feeling that people have taken this Religious Terrorism thing too far? Looking at the Religious Terrorism article, it seems to be about a concept that two main people, Mark Juergensmeyer, whose specialism is the connection between religion and violence I think, and Bruce Hoffman, whose specialism is terrorism, write about. Unfortunately, they seem to have different definitions, or views, of what Religious Terrorism is. For, Mark Juergensmeyer, religious terrorism consists of acts which terrify whose perpetrators have a religious motivation, justification, organization, or world view. In his view, the violence that occurred during the The Troubles in Northern Ireland was religious terrorism. For Bruce Hoffman, to be considered religious terrorism, the perpetrators must use religious scriptures to justify or explain their violent acts or to gain recruits and there must be some sort of clerical figures involved in some leadership roles. His view is that the violence that occurred in Northern Ireland was not religious terrorism. I think that the disagreement between the two, though it may be due to a misunderstanding of the situation that existed in Northern Ireland by Juergensmeyer, possibly indicates that there is a conceptual problem. The talkpage of the Christian terrorism article indicates another problem. The source given for the definition of Christian terrorism actually makes no specific reference to Christian terrorism. I suspect that this indicates a lack of literature out there talking about 'Christian terrorism' as a form of religious terrorism. What has probably happened then is that editors have added in details of groups which they think fit the definition (actually, in some of the cases, I don't think they bothered too much about the formal definition given), but which have not been described anywhere else as 'Christian terrorism'. Perhaps that might be called original research? I've had a scan through the articles on Jewish and Islamic terrorism and think that the same kind of process has gone on there. A bad sign I think is that, in the Islamic terrorism article, no source is given for the definition of what Islamic terrorism is. In the Lead section of the Jewish terrorism article, a sourceless definition of Jewish terrorism as religious terrorism is given, then, in the very next sentence it says that the term is used, among other things, to describe the behaviour of settlers in the West Bank, citing a Haaretz article which is really just using the term to denote terrorism carried out by Jews (it makes one reference to religious fanaticism, but I don't think that its specifically talking about religious terrorism). I think that the normal situation that people would talk about Christian, Jewish or Muslim terrorism, is when they are using it as a convenient way of labelling the terrorists based on what differentiates them from the people they are terrorising or from other surrounding people. Therefore, the definitions given in the three articles of them being forms of religious terrorism are artificial. Hope I've made some sense.  -- ZScarpia (talk) 01:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as article titles go, to make the descendant relationship from the Religious Terrorism article explicit, my recommendation would be to rename the articles Christian Religious Terrorism, Jewish Religious Terrorism and Islamic (or Muslim) Religious Terrorism. -- ZScarpia (talk) 10:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Related to this discussion, re the lead: Islamic terrorism (also known as Jihadist terrorism[citation needed], but not to be confused with Islamist terrorism[1]) is religious terrorism by those whose motivations are rooted in their interpretations of Islam. The lead is supposed to be expanded upon in the body, however, the confusion that they say must not exist, exists absolutely and is never clarified. If a distinction is made, it needs to be a clear one. Perhaps "but not to be confused with Islamist terrorism" should be dropped altogether in the lead and simply discuss the differences in the "debate over terminology" area? Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)