Talk:Jihad

Alternative English Spellings of Jihad
I have found at least one and possibly two alternative English spellings to the word Jihad. The first is Jehad, evidenced by Encyclopedia Brittanica. The second is the Jihath, evidenced here on a Vimeo Video (warning graphic only sourced but not linked for this reason) and a PDF document that appears to go into detail about Paramilitary Groups in the area - I think that Sri Lanka has to work with in order to maintain control over the country. One of the groups is the Jihath Group and it appears to be a Jihadist group. The PDF is the fourth chapter in a work and is called "Partners in crime: SLAFs and Paramilitaries". I think this may be a transliteration issue because it might be that in some transliterations the "d" is replaced with a "th". Possibly because it is transliterated from a Desi background rather than an Arab background. I tried asking/looking around but couldn't get an answer. If anyone knows about Desi transliteration to English for Arabic please advise on if the word "Jihath" is actually the word "Jihad". I think its important because alternative spellings included are not dictionary styles in the sense that WikiPolicy wants to avoid; adding alternative spellings help reader understand what it is they are reading when they see alternative spellings elsewhere.

'Greater and Lesser Jihad'
In this section of the article, a hadith of the prophet PBUH is mentioned: "The ink of the scholar is more holy than the blood of the martyr."

Please be aware that this hadith has very questionable isnad - being graded as either daif (weak) or mawdu (fabricated) by scholars, and its reputability as a source should be included to avoid misunderstandings.

https://islamqa.info/amp/en/answers/11920 https://www.islamweb.net/amp/en/fatwa/85115/ https://hadithanswers.com/the-ink-of-the-scholars/ 77.69.228.122 (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Perhaps so. But we need a better source for this than online religious blogs. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies for my indolence, the direct sources are given in the blogs themselves, but I did not extract them. 77.69.228.122 (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Expose them further
We all should expose the Abbasid Caliphate and the Ottoman Caliphate for involvement in endless Jihad throughout every region of the world, but please don't display any flags or glorify them in our encyclopedia.

We have to expose the truth and that is the cause of the editor.

43.242.178.193 (talk) 09:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The Abassid Caliphate was a virtual non-entity after the Anarchy at Samarra in the mid 1860s. They engaged in little territorial expansion and for most of their existence were a rump state until the Mongols extirpated Baghdad in the mid 1200s. It seems absurd to accuse them of "...endless Jihad through every region of the world..." The Ottomans as well may have expanded greatly in territory early in their rule, but by the mid-1700s were obviously on the back foot. The 19th century was mostly a series of mostly failed and awkward attempts to adopt reforms from the 19th century. They did issue a declaration of Jihad in WWI, largely under the instigation of orientalist Germans who apparently thought of Muslims as robots controlled by declarations of Jihad. It was, somewhat strangely, also applicable to Christians and Jews within their realm (meaning they were supposedly to be legally bound to fight Jihad on the behalf of the Ottoman Empire), and only applicable against the Allied powers. It also was not obeyed at all in the Arab realm, where rebellious Arab nationalist leaders mostly eventually wound up siding with the British, regardless of any declaration from the Caliph.


 * As for "don't display any flags", if they had a flag yes it is going to be displayed. Why would one historical regime or another be selected out for some reason to refuse to have its flag displayed? Even the article on the Nazi regime displays its flag. As for "glorifying them", that is obvious, the purpose of an encyclopedia isn't veneration. It also isn't obsessive condemnation. If you have some secret hidden truth you wish to share with the world, an encyclopedia is not the place to promulgate it. An encyclopedia is the last cog in the scholastic pipeline, not the first. If you disagree with the scholars, become one and publish articles disclosing their supposed contradictions. Those articles can then be used as sources in the encyclopedia. However, you instead rush first to the encyclopedia with nothing but an apparently paranoid and infantile hatred of Islam and a desire to propagate this message, and you expect us to cease being an encyclopedia and instead become a mouthpiece for your activism, which apparently is so necessary and of such an urgent cause (activists *always* claim whatever they wish to be absolutely necessary and urgent, because the necessary and urgent justifies disposal with regular procedure and safeguard, and they do not want to have to deal with regular procedure or safeguard).2601:140:8D01:C90:6C03:A1FE:25E0:290F (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Lede first paragraph
I think this needs to be heavily emphasised, and the distinction between internal and external struggle needs to be made in the lede. This distinction is incredibly important in how English speakers perceive Islam.
 * There are many erroneous  conceptions about  the djihäd. This  word  is  usually,  but erroneously,  translated  as 'holy war'  but nothing of this sort is encompassed  in the term  which  means  'effort  to  the utmost  of one's  capacity'. The   true meaning  of the word  is best  illustrated by the saying of the Prophet  on returning  from  an expedition  against  an Arab  kabïla  that  adhered  to traditional religion: 'We  have  returned from  a lesser djihäd to accomplish the greater djihäd'  that is, to struggle  for inner  perfection. General History of Africa: Volume 3 pg 46,

I think the first paragraph does a very poor job, and I might edit it a bit if no-one replies, although I'm wary to as I haven't studied Islam in any depth. Alexanderkowal (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Perceptions on jihad in lede
Why is the western perception on jihad validated here, rather than challenged?
 * "Most Western writers consider external jihad to have primacy over inner jihad in the Islamic tradition, while much of contemporary Muslim opinion favors the opposite view. The analysis of a large survey from 2002 reveals considerable nuance in the conceptions of jihad held by Muslims around the world."

Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2024
Please add this to the 3rd paragraph of the lead and wherever else in the body: It is a sin to not send an army of Muslims to terrorise the Kuffar, once or twice a year until only Muslims or those who submit to Islam remain, in offensive jihad. Expelling Kuffar from Muslim lands is defensive jihad. Kuffaar (talk) 06:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Not due for the lede, but it can go in the body Kowal2701 (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. PianoDan (talk) 17:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * in the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Divisions_of_the_world_in_Islam?searchToken=99kelod8w0homdty1augcfpcs#Removal_of_sourced_content it can be seen that has struck out his statement, so please revert your last edit here (but  remove the quotation marks)!-Ganeemath (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You can make that sentence, In his book, "DEFENSE OF THE MUSLIM LANDS The first Obligation After Iman", he mentions, based on his interpretation of the hadith, that it is a sin to not send an army of Muslims to terrorise the Kuffar, once or twice a year until only Muslims or those who submit to Islam remain, in offensive jihad; expelling Kuffar from Muslim lands is defensive jihad.-Ganeemath (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

God
, this revert is unnecessary. God can mean any God, but the God in Islam is different. Please self revert your last edit.-Ganeemath (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)


 * ￼Muslims reject all Gods other than Allah!-Ganeemath (talk) 17:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no need in an article about an Islamic concept to specify that God is the god in Islam Kowal2701 (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, it was already linked to God in Islam. – IntGrah (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)