Talk:Jihad/Archive 13

Take this to admin (rmeoved bbc POV)
i will be creating an admins notification section. Adamrce has been reverting sourced content. no other way to settle this

anyone support this?

removed bbc POV until consensus reached. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that would be a good idea Davidelah (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, you can get an admin's advice. However, the article should stays in its long-lasting state, according to WP:BCD. Consensus is based on the suggested additions, not the article's old state. I'll follow-up on the discussion above, so please assume good faith and do the same  AdvertAdam   talk  13:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Admin intervention link
Everyone interested in this admin intervention discussion. please go here and post your opinions if you like. i want to end this arguing once in for all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Censorship_of_Islam_related_articles_by_Adamrce

--Misconceptions2 (talk) 15:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope you learned your lessan to respect the discussion page, according to WP:BRD. Please open a soapbox if you'd like to work-it-out together, or just ask for a third opinion, if you don't like mine.  AdvertAdam   talk  19:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Greater and Lesser Jihad
The famous quote of David Coke is bias. If he didn't see Arabic, Persian, and Urdu scholars writing about nonviolent Jihad doesn't mean that there isn't. This is an Arabic scholar, and a Persian scholar's writings. It's just an example that the quote is invalid, and I'm not sure if it should be removed or justified under it. It's a total bias POV. Hope to get editors' opinions. AdvertAdam  talk  04:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * its davids cook opinion, and he is notable, and it doesnt need to be true. as many things in that jihad article are not true or white washed--Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine. I guess I'll be adding some opinions of Arab, Persian and Urdu scholars, so the readers don't take it seriously.  AdvertAdam   talk  07:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Best Jihad
I am speaking from my knowledge about the English language here and I am not an Islamic scholar. I think that the use of "Best Jihad" as a title is in error. It appears from the context that the use of the word "best" was intended as a superlative of the word good. Most of the phrases in the following paragraph refer to "the best way to do something" and not to a type or title. For example, let's say that I go to a restaurant and I order a lamb dinner and later say that was the "best lamb" I have ever tasted. It would not be accurate to write a review about "Best Lamb" or have a friend go back to the restaurant and order the "Best Lamb". I think that the passages here are trying to describe the best type of jihad and was not creating a new type of jihad called "Best Jihad". This section should be merged into a more appropriate section and the title of "Best Jihad" should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Figlinus (talk • contribs) 19:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You're mistaking, Misconceptions2. I quoted a secondary source on the introduction of the section. It's a BBC article confirming the reason that the general public made those revolutions. I added another source anyways, if you didn't like the first one. I don't care what you read about "Best Jihad", quote your dispute with reliable sources. The only two Hadiths I heard about "Best Jihad" is (1) a word against an oppressing ruler (2) and, a female's completion of hajj. AdvertAdam  talk  04:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * you added the references after.

i plan of adding this hadith to the "best jihad" section: A man asked the Prophet (peace be upon him) “..and what is Jihad?” He replied: “You fight against the disbelievers when you meet them (on the battlefield).” He asked again: “What kind of Jihad is the highest?” He replied: “The person who is killed whilst spilling the last of his blood.” '''[Narrated by Ahmad in his Musnad 4/114 - Hadith sahih. Al Haithami states: “Narrators upheld it.” Majmauz Zawaid 1/59]'''

source, pg19

https://edisk.fandm.edu/wri/MSE2002.pdf --Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You're taking texture out of context, sir. I can't and won't believe that you actually read the source you attached, as it's totally against your intentions. It said that the west is misunderstanding Jihad by taking textures out of context. I personally encourage you to read it, to help you organize your thoughts. The statement was in a war, as described in your source. So, would you think the prophet should of said, "running away is better"?!
 * By the way, FYI, that source is not even published. It's a manual of academic student essays for training purposes.  AdvertAdam   talk  07:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

This thing about the "best jihad" seems problematic because it lacks the following: It isn't a term used by scholars today or in history (like the way the greater jihad has been used). It isn't a term used by people in history and hasn't been reported by major media outlets that the recent demonstrators used such a term.

And even if the term were used by the demonstrators it seems wrong to connote an old theological concept, such as Jihad, with such recent events. Davidelah (talk) 14:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you serious? "old theological concept"? Please tell me you're joking, lol. Greater Jihad has been disputed because there's no strong source that the prophet said that, but this is strongly confirmed by all scholars and four major Hadith collectors.
 * First of all, you're just proving that you know nothing about the Muslim nation. The Qur'an and Hadith are the only two sources and rules of Islam. All Muslim non-governmental channels were putting that Hadith when Tunisia & Egypt got freed. Some demonstrators had signs with that Hadith, and others had signs with the three presidents (of Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt), calling them "opressing sultans and murderers." Please stop disputing something you know nothing about.
 * How do you think mortal human, shield others from bullets and missiles, in a low-populated country like Libya accept being mass-murdered (tens and tens of thousands dead). East Europe tried to do the same demonstrations and gave-up when they saw blood. The same failed attempts has been done everywhere in the world, but their fear of death and lack of belief stopped them.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  07:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no reason to get emotional. If you can't prove the criteria above then the "best jihad" section can,t have such a central place in the Jihad article. The news from khilafah.com and muslimmatters.org is hardly enough to establish a basis for this section. Davidelah (talk) 09:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not getting emotional, but explained why is your comments, and personal theologies, bias; simply because you know nothing about the nation that you're editing about. Actually, even Indonesia largely protested, supporting the Muslims nation for these revolutions. Why, if Arab countries have no relation at all with South Asia? Just because Islam, confirming the teachings of the Prophet! So, this is just a small sample of one of the Arabic news: Google translated the title of page to "The right word at the Sultan unfair" (the same Hadith). There is no reason to remove it, and you're not the one who decides what is bias in Islam (as you're already standing on thin-ice). Btw, I have more contribution to make when I get some time.    ~ AdvertAdam   talk  11:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Davidelah: "It isn't a term used by scholars today or in history". Not true. For one example, this specific hadith is mentioned 42 times in various articles and Friday sermons by Yusuf al-Qaradawi, "one of the most influential Islamic scholars living today". It is also the title of a recent and widely-circulated article of his, titled "The Best of Jihad [is] Jihad against injustice and corruption", which was first published in a book called Fiqh of Jihad in 2009, and republished again days before the Egyptian revolution. This is just one example of a highly influential scholar frequently referring to the "best jihad". Wiqi( 55 ) 13:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I would agree that Yusuf al-Qaradawi is a more reliable source than those current linked articles, but as I see it and repeat, it isn't a term used by scholars historically, and current events shouldn't shape this article about religious doctrines. Another thing that makes this source from Qaradawi questionable is his involvement in the Muslim Brotherhood, as he is often described as its spiritual leader, and therefore he is also involved in politics. So perhaps even this source should not be taken as a new understanding because it could be agenda driven. Davidelah (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This section is strongly POV, and very badly written. I suggest deletion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Rules of Jihad
You changed the meaning of the whole article. Those are rules of warfare Jihad, not the rest of the nonviolence types of Jihad. This article is tagged as controversial article, so please discuss major edits with talk-page first  AdvertAdam   talk  04:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Various schools
I don't think it's logical to add two schools out-of tens, which is pushing a minority POV that confuses users. If you'd like to add them, you need to be fair regarding the other schools too. I suggest putting them on a soapbox before adding an unfinished insertion on an important article. Adding texture out of context is not a way to contribute. Those are primary sources and you excluded the paragraphs that mention it's for self-defense. Anyways, original resource is not allowed, and the article is already tagged with too many quotes! AdvertAdam  talk  04:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * fine i will add the POV of the 4 major schoopls to balance it, see above--Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Follow-up above  AdvertAdam   talk  09:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Who supports adding the rules of warfare, according to the 4 schools of sunni islam
I was planning on adding the rules of warfare, according to Hanafi, Shaff'i, Maliki and Hanbali schools (with secondary sources), to challenge bbc. If you support. Can you also tell me if you support adding rules of warfare based on famius books such as the

reliance of the traveller, a text version of it is found at the kentucky university

Or would you support adding the views of the foudners of those 4 schools. i.e Imam Hanifa, Maliki, Shaff'i and Hanbali?

There views on the rules of warfare can be found here: Non Combatants in Islam, the link is to a Hudson think tank research document. I think they give advice to the United States department of defence, the organisation i believe is government backed.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 11:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

page of the rules of warefare
i will add content here, and would like your views on the rules. i am not sure who's opinion i should add though yet. i was thinking of going for the opinions of the founders

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jihad/rules_of_warefare

comments
BBC BULLSHIT do you really think that bbc is a good source of information? . I dont think so. I think we should refer to historical sources.In those jihad has always had a meaning of war which included raids of parts of Europe and Africa by pirates in search of slaves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.222.75.107 (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

A WP:SELFPUBLISH?
The current source seven by Hisham Kabbani seems to be self-published. If this is the case it should not be used or at least "According to Hisham Kabbani" should be added. --Davidelah (talk) 11:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Dictionary of Islam
If the "Dictionary of Islam" is authoratative why isn't there a reference to it instead of to "Morgan, Diane (2010). Essential Islam: a comprehensive guide to belief and practice"? HughesJohn (talk) 13:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

And, which "Dictionary of Islam"? Hughes? Penguin? Oxford? Some other one?

Ah, it appears to be Hughes: "JIHAD Lit. "An effort, or a striving." A religious war with those who are unbelievers in the mission of Muhammad.. It is an incumbent religious duty, established in the Qur’an and in the Traditions as a divine institution, and enjoined specially for the purpose of advancing Islam and of repelling evil from Muslims."

Is "A DICTIONARY OF ISLAM Being A CYCLOPAEDIA OF THE DOCTRINES, RITES, CEREMONIES, AND CUSTOMS, TOGETHER WITH THE TECHNICAL AND THEOLOGICAL TERMS, OF THE MUHAMMADAN RELIGION BY THOMAS PATRICK HUGHES, B.D., M.R.A.S. LONDON W.H. ALLEN & CO., 13 WATERLOO PLACE, PALL MALL S.W. 1895 " the authoratative source? http://answering-islam.org/Books/Hughes/

Jihad means Diligence, which is constant and earnest effort to accomplish what is undertaken; persistent exertion of body or mind and in Islam it is to confront injustice and misguidance and justice and goodness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.154.253.67 (talk) 09:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC) Jihads in Arabic language means diligence and do the most ones can do with maximum effort and energy, the religious meaning is to achieve true faith and what comes from it, and fight all that God abhor of heresy, immorality and ethical dissolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.154.253.67 (talk) 10:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The definition of the term Jihad has been discussed exhaustively. Peter Deer (talk) 12:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

A correction request
Please, correct the following sentence from the chapter Origins so its meaning is clear and understandable in English: "The struggle for Jihad in the Quran was originally intended for the nearby neighbors of the Muslims, but as time passed and more enemies arose, the Quranic statements supporting Jihad were updated for the new adversaries." Since jihad means struggle than the phrase "struggle for Jihad" does not make sense as meaning "struggle for Struggle". Does it, please? Thanks.--24.44.108.229 (talk) 16:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  05:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not entirely. There is still missing the meaning of jihad according to Quran making the following sentence unclear as well: "Jihad in the Quran was originally intended for the nearby neighbors of the Muslims, but as time passed and more enemies arose, the Quranic statements supporting Jihad were updated for the new adversaries."
 * I only presume that the intention of that sentence was to say that: "Jihad in the Quran originally meant 'to struggle against' and referred to the nearby neighbors...". Am I right? You need first to clarify the meaning of jihad and only then say to whom it pertained to.--24.44.108.229 (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I only presume that the intention of that sentence was to say that: "Jihad in the Quran originally meant 'to struggle against' and referred to the nearby neighbors...". Am I right? You need first to clarify the meaning of jihad and only then say to whom it pertained to.--24.44.108.229 (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

>< What I wanted to remove from wiki articles about jihad liked: A>. To which vintage allow Islam (Quran?) For mogametanische guys a la Modjahedde, a la Eventual Modjahedd - juniors, (play) to participate in jihad, without fear of possible Follge,? B> Who can be a Jihad (Holy Krig for Islam) declare any Mogametaner or just a Muslim cleric? C> exestieren Regele or any laws (in the Koran?) For a jihad? Should the opponent be expressly asked to note what .. and why ... ? Or, it is sufficient ground for example Gfaffiti. D> Kidnapping can be a auich the jihad? Only in this way, for information. 35% (J. 2010) Piopel brusselose is Mogametaneren. (About 1% Madrid, Berlin, about 1, 5%, about 2% in London, Paris ca.0, 3 Rome about 0.8%), you have a political lobby in Kreisse, Islam-friendly immigration policy since last approximately 50 years, mogametanische policemen short Dratt Mosquee - Prosecutor brusseloese etc. Do they please not wrong, but Islamized from 19 clock city street of Brussels de fackto. Islamic,  say so short that is well prepared for jihad. This is not Israel, not U.S., Islamic Jihad is one Neuegkeit for Brussels, the people do not know Einzelcheite. Most Christians still believe that they live in a Christian town. Mogametaneren like it unfortunately does not discuss about Islam, Allah, Prophet Mogamet, jihad, Shariat. So very much more sense question eussig skeptical if not agressiev. Well, something to please Plus Lemata. Thank you Sfgsg (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC) Savedth567 (talk) 15:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC) Yes, that's interesting wörklich. What forms have a jihad into a Western city, eg in the U.S.? If the absolutely only - "Boo! Ba-Bam!" Or, maybe more run "intiligent" to a "crimi-art" or sabotage. Not important? Not for Now York not for Madrid. Savedth567 (talk) 15:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Andrew G. Bostom is not reliable
has restored Bostom's reference claiming that:
 * "Expertise" of the kind you're referring is not required for a favorably reviewed and apparently well-received book. There are a few others here that would fail your criteria as well, but it isn't cause to remove them.

I don't think any Wikipedia policy supports SudoGhost's claims. Also if similar authors here are similarly "nothing more", then remove them as well, I do not object to that. Al-Andalusi (talk) 04:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What policy supports your position that the individual must have certain unclarified scholarly qualifications or the books written by these individuals are not to be placed in an article, no matter how the books themselves are received? - SudoGhost 04:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You can't be serious ! The Bible is well-received, should we quote it in the article on Earth (being flat and 6000 years old) ?
 * It seems that Bostom's reference is problematic as other editors have already raised concerns over its use at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_11. Al-Andalusi (talk) 05:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Since the Bible says nothing about the earth being flat and/or 6,000 years old, that's not really a valid comparison. The discussion you linked was concerning its use as a reliable source for directly supporting information, not in a Further reading section. - SudoGhost 05:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You're not addressing the reliability issue here. In fact, you formulate a new "rule" of your own (and falsely assume that WP endorses it) with every reply you post. You first started with the claim that academic expertise is not required, and then you added that it's fine to keep Bostom's source in the article since the article is already tainted with other references of similar status (instead of showing effort to correct that), and now this: that the above decision of the RS board applies only to inline citations but not the "further reading". Al-Andalusi (talk) 05:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not "formulate" anything, nor do I "falsely assume" anything. Your personal commentary on my statements is both unnecessary and inaccurate.  Reliability is not an "all or nothing" situation, reliability depends on the information it is intended to verify; what would be appropriate and reliable for one statement would be wholly inappropriate and completely unreliable for another.  "Further reading" verifies nothing, but rather provides a list of additional reading material that is relevant to the article's subject.  Also, I see no solid consensus of the discussion you linked above, that topic appeared to have died before any sort of consensus could form. - SudoGhost 06:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Al-andalusi, you clearly have an agenda in removing his post claiming he is "not reliable". Burden of proof is on you to show why he is any less reliable than the others, since his notability is equal to the other authors there - proof for him has already been established. A "Further reading" section merely denotes books on the matter. The book is published by a reliable publishing house, a reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The author also has news coverage: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/may/20/islams-history-of-anti-semitism/ by the Washington Times, a mainstream, well-respected newspaper, which notes that he used "a vast collection of important documents". Same goes for CBS News: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/12/13/opinion/main1123459.shtml. There is nothing which says specific expertise is needed for a work to be reliable, in fact quite the opposite. From WP:SOURCES itself: "Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications." So, swallow your words already, that's glaring proof right there that you are wrong. Funny you accuse him of formulating new "rules" - you are the one who appears to be formulating the "rule" that the author needs to be an academic to write, when WP:SOURCES says the exact opposite! Also, bringing in the Bible example is stupid, this is not an article about the Bible, so stop with ignoratio elenchi. I've provided evidence in the form of two mainstream publications reviewing and noting the verifiability of the author. "claim that academic expertise is not required,"? Academic expertise is not required! WP:SOURCES says it all. You are quite completely wrong.
 * If you revert one more time without establishing consensus, you are in violation of 3RR, just so you know.  &theta;v&xi;r     mag&xi;   contribs 06:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Your silly "agenda" accusations aside, you haven't established in any way, how Prometheus Books can be considered (1) a respected and (2) a mainstream publisher per the following from WP:Sources: "Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications".
 * which btw, you haven't quoted honestly, as it was preceded by: "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science. But they are not the only reliable sources in such areas."
 * And yes, there are thousands of academic and peer-reviewed sources available on the topic of Jihad, so there is no reason to rely on a doctor with NO credentials (and with an agenda). Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You saved me the work of re-quoting the source, since within the statement you placed you have shot yourself in the proverbial foot. "usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science. But they are not the only reliable sources in such areas." Usually, but they are not the only. I have given examples of notability and favourable reviews. You, on the other hand have not established why non-academia is unreliable (nor that this doctor has an agenda as you so propose - at this stage it is a baseless accusation and a sign of your bias). Find me any wikipedia policy which establishes that, and come back when you have done so. I still see none, I see a lot of 'may be's, 'not only's. No 'is's. &theta;v&xi;r     mag&xi;   contribs 01:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * For the second time, notability is NOT sufficient grounds for inclusion; we are discussing its *reliability*, which you are yet to establish. Those so-called "favourable reviews" do not come from people with expertise in any relevant field. That discredits your reference. In addition, Bostom is a known critic of Islam, as noted by the editors in the WP:RSN I linked above, which you clearly have not bothered to read. In fact one of your "favourable reviews" ends with the following statement that best summarizes Bostom's intentions behind his work: "...you won't have to feel guilty about the Crusades any more".
 * Now that I've established that Bostom is unreliable, and cleared myself of your "bias" charges, let's talk about your role here. So far you have not explained your insistence on favouring a doctor's work with an partisan agenda over hundreds of academic publications and journals ? You are the biased one here I'm afraid. Al-Andalusi (talk) 01:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "established that Bostom is unreliable" how? Because he disagrees with Islam? Does that make him biased? So, those who support Islam are biased, by that same token? Work by anybody who is Islamic should be unreliable, then? That's a terrible argument that's not covered in wikipedia policy. I'll be honest- I do not give two hoots about Jihad or Islam in general, and was just randomly browsing. I posted here because I saw a clear misintepretation of wikipedia policies, namely by you. You haven't established or proven anything. I have no agenda other than stopping people with agendas. (If you see my edits, they are mostly gaming-related) You have already established that you have an anti- anti-Islam agenda. That is not constructive. Wikipedia is not censored and strives for NPOV - that means presenting both sides of the equation, both critical and supportive. All I want is for you to actually come up with some solid proof, a policy that says his non-academic source cannot be used, or a solid reference that states his work is unreliable. You have not. I remain, as always, unimpressed. (P.S. I have actually read the RSN. Consensus was not established. Other than giving additional information, it cannot factor into my decisions as it makes none itself.)  &theta;v&xi;r     mag&xi;   contribs 03:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not say that he was unreliable "because he is a critic of Islam". It's disingenuous of you to put words in my mouth. I said that he is (1) unreliable because he has no qualifications and then I *added* that (2) he is biased because of his anti-Muslim views. You said that "a solid reference that states his work is unreliable", sorry that's an unheard-of policy that I'm just going to ignore. The response from the RS board clearly states:
 * "For a mainstream academic topic like Islam, many hundreds of scholarly books and many thousands of peer-reviewed articles in recognized journals are available. While it make sense to use high-level introductory books for an overview, there is no reason to go to borderline sources on anything remotely controversial. This is not a fringe topic where we must be thankful for any scrap of material."
 * So for the fourth time Overmage I'm asking you, why are you favouring this non-academic (and biased) reference over academic sources ? If you are going to respond with another accusation of an "agenda", then you better meet me at the ANI board. For now, I'm tagging the disputed reference until consensus is reached. Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You're confusing notability and reliability. Reliability is required to use as a reference.  This is not a reference, not a source.  "In addition, Bostom is a known critic of Islam..." is irrelevant.  Are people biased because of their pro-Muslim views? Of course not.  Yet the reverse is somehow true by default?  No. - SudoGhost 20:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You are wrong: Further reading. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * For being so quick in declaring "wrong", it seems you've missed the entire content of an unaccepted essay. - SudoGhost 16:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "and then I *added* that (2) he is biased because of his anti-Muslim views" - If that's not an agenda I don't know what that is. Why bother adding this? It should not factor into any decision to keep it or not. There are in fact wikipedia policies specifically discouraging removal of material on the grounds of it being biased or overly critical (forgot the name, lazy to find it). Is that so hard to get? Also, last I checked the ANI board wasn't used for petty disputes between editors, but for actual editing related problems. You're more likely to waste some poor admin's time over something that could have been brought up at the DRN ;) Why am I favouring this? I am not favouring anything - I am saying that your removal of the source was not in line with wikipedia policy and that you haven't established proof. RS board provided no consensus, so it's useless as far as this dispute is concerned, it might as well be a wikipedia essay for all the quoting you do. If your best source for why his work violates policy is an RS thread with no firm consensus established, tough luck - that's an 'unheard-of policy'! And speaking of "unheard-of policy", how many unheard-of policies have you brought up here alone? I counted about six thousand, what about you? :) (P.S. I am completely fine with the disputed tag. If you had done that earlier it would have saved us all quite some time.)  &theta;v&xi;r     mag&xi;   contribs 00:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not that Bostom has written objectively on the subject, and happens to hold or express some anti-Islamic or anti-Muslim views in his work; his entire work from cover to cover is critical of Islam and Muslims, hence why I brought this up. The fact that Wikipedia assesses (and weighs) even the ideas expressed in reliable academic sources per Fringe theories and WP:UNDUE, it really highlights the danger of including a work that combines the qualities of being non-academic and one-sided.
 * You keep saying that there is no consensus on the RS board. Fine, this Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 5 clearly states the following regarding the use of Robert Spencer's sources in Criticism of the Quran:
 * "Consensus was reached...that: we agree he is notable, and we agree he should be mentioned as a critic. However, we argue that he is not a reliable source, and should not be given undue space (except on his own article). Still if there are secondary sources that quote him, we let him stay".
 * Bostom's status is exactly the same as that of Spencer, both are not academic and both are critics of Islam (and keep in mind that the consensus above applies to Criticism of the Quran and not the main article Qur'an). Hence, I'm removing Bostom's reference per the above. If you still have issues, then raise them to the RS board (oh and come back only if you have a "solid consensus") Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Except this is not being used as a source. Therefore your quote above seems to suggest this very thing, that further reading is an appropriate place, whereas as a reliable source it is not.  You keep arguing against something that isn't being done, and isn't being discussed; use as a reliable source. - SudoGhost 16:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The policies of reliability and inclusion apply to all sections of a WP article, not just inline citations. Produce any evidence to the contrary if you have, and please stop wasting our time. Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Consensus was reached...that: we agree he is notable, and we agree he should be mentioned as a critic. However, we argue that he is not a reliable source, and should not be given undue space (except on his own article). Still if there are secondary sources that quote him, we let him stay": EXACTLY. He is mentioned as a critic, but not as a primary source. That's where he is in: further reading. ????? Or is there something you are misunderstanding about the very statement you quoted? (and you should have a "solid consensus" before you remove stuff) &theta;v&xi;r     mag&xi;   contribs 00:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Per Further_reading, the sources used should be reliable. It is clear that Bostom is not a reliable source.Bless sins (talk) 22:21, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Assassinations
The history of jihad is long and complex, and usually involved Muslim armies waging war. Political assassinations are usually not considered Jihad. The source cited in this article, doesn't refer to fedayeen as conducting a jihad. Such material should be replaced with actual history of jihad.Bless sins (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

David Cook
David Cook should have an article. Therefore there should be a (red) link. Because the article is closed, I can't do that. There are often citations of his books in the literature. --R. la Rue (talk) 23:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

A correction request
Under the paragraph Usage of the term and sub-label the best of Jihad citation #25. there is a reference to a chapter in Qur'an, Al-Baqarah verse 15 as saying: The best jihad is the one in which your horse is slain and your blood is spilled. But the quotation appears only in the book by Ibn Nuhaas, and the way the text is put right now, it shows as if this appears in Quran Chapter: al-Baqarah, verse 15.--In Allah We Trust (talk) 11:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC) Islamiste in U.S. or Europe are not in a position

to lead a Krig in customary fashion. Now-a-days, a jihad is a partisan Krig. It would explain the well. Modern Jihad, shapes and methods, "Jihad - type" declare for persons who are interesting and clear. So they have a jihad or Djihadist timely detect.Elbrussel (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Resistance against globalization
Minjitaism (talk) 04:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Minji KimMinjitaism (talk) 04:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC) Hi, I would like to add another content under 'Usage of the term':

Resistance against globalization Benjamin R. Barber modified the term Jihad to point out the resistant movement against globalization (which he refers to as 'McWorld') as well as the modern-institutionalization of nation states. The forces of 'Jihad' come from fundamentalist ethnic groups who want to protect their traditions, heritage and identity from modernization and universalized markets. The resistance has led to fragmented, small-scale violent conflicts between cultures, peoples and tribes. Although 'Jihad' strengthens the solidarity within the resisting group, it obeys to hierarchy and cannot tolerate foreign influence, which discourages democracy.

References: see also: []

The BBC???
I do not think it's appropriate to include a definition by the BBC as if the BBC is some kind of authority on the subject. I would therefore suggest that the paragraph which begins "according to the BBC, a third meaning of Jihad is..." be removed. The BBC is a media organisation, not an authority on the definition of Jihad. It is inappropriate to include their propaganda in an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.38.82 (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Needs to be removed ASAP. (Iamcyclops (talk) 01:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC))

Still not written as a proper encyclopedia article
Realizing this is a sensitive topic for a variety of reasons, this article still reads a lot more like an essay than an encyclopedic article. To begin with the topic is not entirely clear. The article focuses much more on defining the term (making it more of a dictionary entry than encyclopedic) and does not try to clear discuss a concrete topic per se.

I would point out a couple of things:
 * First, if you look in English-language dictionaries (this is an English Wikipedia article, not an Arabic or Islamopedia article) jihad is defined, not as in the Quran, but as warfare. Granted, some of that definition is rooted in bigotry but it is problematic to say that Wikipedia believes the proper definition of a word differs from the dictionaries say.
 * Second, concept of jihad used by extremists is a notable topic in and of itself. There is an existing article jihadism that talks about this. But it is problematic to say that jihad and jihadism are not the same thing. This seems gratuitously misleading.

My suggestion:
 * Move the content of this article to an article named something like "Jihad (Islam)".
 * Change this article "Jihad" to be a disambiguation article wide links to both "Jihad (Islam)" and "Jihadism".

That would be an effective way to remove bias from the discussion.

-- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.168.34 (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

"a noun meaning "struggle" against athiests"? Not what it said here yesterday?
I'm not a regular wikipedia editor/user, but I was reading the article yesterday for a paper I'm writing and it's suddenly been changed dramatically, at least in the opening text. It now has a whole paragraph about killing infidels in the intro of the entry, which seems very biased. Not sure how I should go about changing this though, as I've never edited anything here before.

This should probably be changed though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nate111135 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It appears Khawar.nehal is responsible for these strongly biased edits (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jihad&diff=554807488&oldid=554098550 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jihad&diff=554808411&oldid=554807488). His contributions this past week make for interesting reading. I urge a POV tag to be added to this article until the necessary corrections have been made. 130.88.195.176 (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * To be nearer the factual state, I have edited the "Within the context of the classical Islam, particularly the Shiahs beliefs, it refers to struggle against those who do not believe in Islamic God (Allah).[1]" ... may it improves the article. Drali1954 (talk) 05:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The tone in the section on the Muslim Brotherhood differs from that of the main article
Reading through the main article seen, here Muslim_Brotherhood, I noticed the tone made it seem as if the Muslim Brotherhood had taken a more peaceful stance politically and a less strict stance when it came to religion. It seems to be the opposite case when I read through the Muslim Brotherhood section of this article. I scanned through the sources and didn't seen anything suspicious or way out of date. Does someone want to look into this? TheWisestOfFools (talk) 21:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The link "Jihad and Muslim Support for Suicide Bombings" is no longer available.
The link "Jihad and Muslim Support for Suicide Bombings" is no longer available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.243.116 (talk) 08:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The link "Jihad and Muslim Support for Suicide Bombings" is no longer available.
The link "Jihad and Muslim Support for Suicide Bombings" is no longer available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.243.116 (talk) 08:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The link "Jihad and Muslim Support for Suicide Bombings" is no longer available.
The link "Jihad and Muslim Support for Suicide Bombings" is no longer available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.243.116 (talk) 08:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for edit: Jihad misunderstood as Holy War? Article contradicts this
The lede states that 'Jihad is commonly misunderstood as "Holy War"'. However the article contradicts this (e.g refs 2,10,12,26 and sections on Holy Warfare and Debate). Could someone change the lede so it makes sense. "Misunderstood" is clear bias not supported by all the sources.

DHooke1973 (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have changed to commonly user rather than misunderstood which is a POV term.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Request for edit: Jihad misunderstood as Holy War? Article contradicts this
The lede states that 'Jihad is commonly misunderstood as "Holy War"'. However the article contradicts this (e.g refs 2,10,12,26 and sections on Holy Warfare and Debate). Could someone change the lede so it makes sense. "Misunderstood" is clear bias not supported by all the sources.

DHooke1973 (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have changed to commonly user rather than misunderstood which is a POV term.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Request for edit: Jihad misunderstood as Holy War? Article contradicts this
The lede states that 'Jihad is commonly misunderstood as "Holy War"'. However the article contradicts this (e.g refs 2,10,12,26 and sections on Holy Warfare and Debate). Could someone change the lede so it makes sense. "Misunderstood" is clear bias not supported by all the sources.

DHooke1973 (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have changed to commonly user rather than misunderstood which is a POV term.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Request for edit: Jihad misunderstood as Holy War? Article contradicts this
The lede states that 'Jihad is commonly misunderstood as "Holy War"'. However the article contradicts this (e.g refs 2,10,12,26 and sections on Holy Warfare and Debate). Could someone change the lede so it makes sense. "Misunderstood" is clear bias not supported by all the sources.

DHooke1973 (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have changed to commonly user rather than misunderstood which is a POV term.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Jihad is the fight for women's liberation
Come on, we all realise this entire article is a joke, but this sentence is a pure pisstake

".....the terminology is also applied to the fight for women's liberation.[16]"

from a very very dubious source (muslim "feminist" ranting at a third rate US college)

Since the article is protected are there any admins who would care to remove that "joke", it would be interesting to find out who the joker is that'll contest its deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeddyTesseract (talk • contribs) 10:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have not gone through the entire article but I do have a firm understanding of Jihad and its implications in the Quran and the Sunnah.
 * It is not specifically applied to "Women's Liberation" but it can be applied to abuse against women in terms of prostitution,human trafficking or :domestic violence.The Government itself or the chiefs of the village or the administrators of towns and cities in case of lack of or no central :government can act against groups,mafias or networks that are suppressing women(Not allowing for Education or The Right to Vote) or exploiting and :mistreating them as described earlier,without transgressing limits.This would,in theory,be applied to the central meaning of Jihad,that is,to :counter anything that is evil or against the Muslim faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.188.160.199 (talk) 16:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Ahmadiya
Could the editor please move the Ahmadiya point of view out of the "Views of Different Muslim Groups" section? The Ahmadiya community is really not considered as "Muslims" because of their interpretation of Islam and the belief that Mehdi has ascended to Earth.The constitution of certain countries,such as Pakistan,clearly declare them to be non-Muslims.On a side note,as personal opinion: they are in a habit of passing their propaganda around on the internet.I have sat for one of their sermons where they actually declared the rest of the Muslim's to be infidels who should be dealt with as soon as they have the resources.I have seen them all around the internet with this "moto" of peace which started springing up in the books written in the early 21st century(in a way that they are the only sect that is in favor of it), though their earlier literature speaks otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.188.211.12 (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Ahmadiya
Could the editor please move the Ahmadiya point of view out of the "Views of Different Muslim Groups" section? The Ahmadiya community is really not considered as "Muslims" because of their interpretation of Islam and the belief that Mehdi has ascended to Earth.The constitution of certain countries,such as Pakistan,clearly declare them to be non-Muslims.On a side note,as personal opinion: they are in a habit of passing their propaganda around on the internet.I have sat for one of their sermons where they actually declared the rest of the Muslim's to be infidels who should be dealt with as soon as they have the resources.I have seen them all around the internet with this "moto" of peace which started springing up in the books written in the early 21st century(in a way that they are the only sect that is in favor of it), though their earlier literature speaks otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.188.211.12 (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Ahmadiya
Could the editor please move the Ahmadiya point of view out of the "Views of Different Muslim Groups" section? The Ahmadiya community is really not considered as "Muslims" because of their interpretation of Islam and the belief that Mehdi has ascended to Earth.The constitution of certain countries,such as Pakistan,clearly declare them to be non-Muslims.On a side note,as personal opinion: they are in a habit of passing their propaganda around on the internet.I have sat for one of their sermons where they actually declared the rest of the Muslim's to be infidels who should be dealt with as soon as they have the resources.I have seen them all around the internet with this "moto" of peace which started springing up in the books written in the early 21st century(in a way that they are the only sect that is in favor of it), though their earlier literature speaks otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.188.211.12 (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Ahmadiya
Could the editor please move the Ahmadiya point of view out of the "Views of Different Muslim Groups" section? The Ahmadiya community is really not considered as "Muslims" because of their interpretation of Islam and the belief that Mehdi has ascended to Earth.The constitution of certain countries,such as Pakistan,clearly declare them to be non-Muslims.On a side note,as personal opinion: they are in a habit of passing their propaganda around on the internet.I have sat for one of their sermons where they actually declared the rest of the Muslim's to be infidels who should be dealt with as soon as they have the resources.I have seen them all around the internet with this "moto" of peace which started springing up in the books written in the early 21st century(in a way that they are the only sect that is in favor of it), though their earlier literature speaks otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.188.211.12 (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Muslim Brotherhood
The section seems unnecessary in the wider scope of Jihad.More appropriate subsections would be its use in the subcontinent by Barelvi or a concise history of its use by Muhammad and its predecessors.The tone of the Muslim Brotherhood section itself is bias and cites Pro-Israel,Jewish or anti Islam sources such as the Jewish Tribune or the Jewish Virtual Library(Sources 58 and 59). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.188.211.12 (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Muslim Brotherhood
The section seems unnecessary in the wider scope of Jihad.More appropriate subsections would be its use in the subcontinent by Barelvi or a concise history of its use by Muhammad and its predecessors.The tone of the Muslim Brotherhood section itself is bias and cites Pro-Israel,Jewish or anti Islam sources such as the Jewish Tribune or the Jewish Virtual Library(Sources 58 and 59). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.188.211.12 (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Muslim Brotherhood
The section seems unnecessary in the wider scope of Jihad.More appropriate subsections would be its use in the subcontinent by Barelvi or a concise history of its use by Muhammad and its predecessors.The tone of the Muslim Brotherhood section itself is bias and cites Pro-Israel,Jewish or anti Islam sources such as the Jewish Tribune or the Jewish Virtual Library(Sources 58 and 59). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.188.211.12 (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Muslim Brotherhood
The section seems unnecessary in the wider scope of Jihad.More appropriate subsections would be its use in the subcontinent by Barelvi or a concise history of its use by Muhammad and its predecessors.The tone of the Muslim Brotherhood section itself is bias and cites Pro-Israel,Jewish or anti Islam sources such as the Jewish Tribune or the Jewish Virtual Library(Sources 58 and 59). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.188.211.12 (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Inconsistancy between body and lead
LEAD There are two commonly accepted meanings of jihad: an inner spiritual struggle and an outer physical struggle.[2] The "greater jihad" is the inner struggle by a believer to fulfill his religious duties.[2][6] This non-violent meaning is stressed by both Muslim[7] and non-Muslim[8] authors.

BODY Although some Islamic scholars have differed on the implementation of Jihad, there is consensus amongst them that the concept of jihad will always include armed struggle against persecution and oppression.[40]

There is some inconsistency here: "there is a consensus amongst islamic scholars that juhad will always include armed struggle."

but in the Lead, it says the opposite that non-violent meaning is stressed? Which one is it? Most of us can plainly see it's the armed struggle that is prevalent in Islam, so I will make this change so the lead reflects more what is said in the body.Greengrounds (talk) 05:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Jihad is the fight for women's liberation
Come on, we all realise this entire article is a joke, but this sentence is a pure pisstake

".....the terminology is also applied to the fight for women's liberation.[16]"

from a very very dubious source (muslim "feminist" ranting at a third rate US college)

Since the article is protected are there any admins who would care to remove that "joke", it would be interesting to find out who the joker is that'll contest its deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeddyTesseract (talk • contribs) 10:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have not gone through the entire article but I do have a firm understanding of Jihad and its implications in the Quran and the Sunnah.
 * It is not specifically applied to "Women's Liberation" but it can be applied to abuse against women in terms of prostitution,human trafficking or :domestic violence.The Government itself or the chiefs of the village or the administrators of towns and cities in case of lack of or no central :government can act against groups,mafias or networks that are suppressing women(Not allowing for Education or The Right to Vote) or exploiting and :mistreating them as described earlier,without transgressing limits.This would,in theory,be applied to the central meaning of Jihad,that is,to :counter anything that is evil or against the Muslim faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.188.160.199 (talk) 16:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

To the above ^^^....Islam IS anti-female. It CANT be for women's rights when it actively seeks to deny them of rights [and it does in Muslim controlled nations]. But both the hadiths and the Quran both state that females should have less rights, so it is a religous issue and not one of culture. 107.222.205.242 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

NPOV: quote from Contemporary Islamist ideology authorizing genocidal murder
The Muslim Brotherhood section of this article links to a  MEMRI paper titled Contemporary Islamist ideology authorizing genocidal murder.

I cannot yet comment definitively on the neutrality of this paper, since I have not have opportunity to review it in sufficient depth. I do consider that the manner in which it is quoted here makes a strong, universal statement about contemporary Islamic cultural beliefs, and would like to invite discussion on whether such a statement is justifiable or should be included without counterpoint.—Jordan Gray (talk) 13:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

misconception that jihad is defined as an internal struggle
--DHorsman (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC) The text:

″There is a misconception that jihad is defined as an internal struggle to live by the tenets of Islam: specifically, faith (shahadah), prayer (salat), fasting (sawm), tithing (zakat), and pilgrimage (hajj). However, there is no historical or literary evidence that supports this extravagant definition.″

The closing sentence in this paragraph comes across as misleading, offensive and literally bigoted. I do not believe its meaning was the intent of the author. It certainly contradicts the several historical quotations in the article including that of the prophet himself. Was this a statement instead about The holy Qur'an?

I am in no way qualified to correct this but feel it needs some attention.

will cleanup article, time permitting
The article seems to be a victim of a sort of small-scale long-term edit war going on between editors who want to include spiritual and various kinds of non-violent jihad, and those who want to make sure jihad of the sword gets plenty of mention. The result is not very satisfactory. I will attempt to clean it up. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions
The "Origins" section might benefit by being broken into logical subsections -- the current section is very long. The "History of Usage" section has two "Shia" subheads, but perhaps those could be combined. konetidy (talk) 12:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In defense of my organizing I will say that


 * What went on in Islamic history is a big deal, and very influential towards what is going on in the present.
 * There are "Shia" subheads, one for Contemporary Fundamentalist usage, and one for Post-Classical usage . However, looking at the content again, I think you are right and I'll merge them. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2014
Kindly add the following quote as Hadith for Jihad

'''Imam Jafar al Sadiq (a) said: The Prophet (s) of God dispatched a contingent of the army (to the battlefront). Upon their (successful) return, he (s) said: Blessed are those who have performed the minor jihad and have yet to perform the major jihad. When asked, What is the major jihad? the Prophet (s) replied: The jihad of the self (struggle against self). [Al-Majlisi, Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 19, p. 182, hadith no. 31]'''

The above Hadith is very important else people will not know the exact meaning of actual Jihad.

Thanks.

58.97.142.60 (talk) 15:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. &mdash;  LeoFrank   Talk 16:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

You may put it into Jihad (linked in this article at the bottom). There are countless hadith; we cannot collect them into encyclopedia. Encyclopedia summarizes the information. Current section says the basics already. The quote adds nothing new. We may only add a line that Ja'far al-Sadiq (is this the one?) was one of the noted supporters of the idea of greater/major jihad. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Is Jihad "universal" yet?
Near the end of the "jihad" article, the editor states that jihad has not been "universal" since the rule of the Caliphate. I suggest that this "fact" (so claimed by the editor) be 'updated' in view of the present worldwide jihad offensive, as of Oct., '14. But that would require a "reliable source." What news source would that be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.155.141.173 (talk) 01:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

"origins" section
Editor Misconseptions2 has restored text at the beginning of the "origins" section here, which I had removed in an earlier attempt to cleanup the article. His edit summary reads: "restored previously removed SOURCED data"

Yes it's sourced, But

A) as far as I can tell, the sources aren't online or are behind a paywall.

B)There is a lot of repetition with that text and other text in the "Quranic use and Arabic forms" that follows, e.g.:

restored text:
 * ''The Quran, however, never uses the term Jihad for fighting and combat in the name of Allah; qital is used to mean “fighting.”

later text:
 * "Jihad" as the exact form "JHAD"(جهاد), (the "i" in jihad is a tashkeel or harakat in Arabic, which is implied but not written in some early Qur'ans[28]), appears only twice in the Qur'an (Qur'an 60:1[29] and 9:24[30]). 

restored text:
 * ''The first documentation of the law of Jihad was written by ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Awza’i and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani. The document grew out of debates that had surfaced ever since Muhammad's death.[20]

later text:
 * ''The first documentation of the law of Jihad was written by 'Abd al-Rahman al-Awza'i and Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani. (It grew out of debates that surfaced following Muhammad's death.[20])

restored text:
 * The beginnings of Jihad are traced back to the words and actions of Muhammad and the Quran. 

later text:
 *  Nonetheless, it is usually used in the religious sense and its beginnings are traced back to the Quran and words and actions of Muhammad.  

--BoogaLouie (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Cannot talk to Misconsceptions as he has been blocked. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Made some deletions of repetition in the section per above, but kept anything that was not repeated. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

jihad bis saif etc
Please add Arabic wording. Selfhatingmuslim (talk) 04:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

origin of the term
Unsourced claim that it did not appear in Arabic before. That's not saying much,a s there wasn't much writing in Arabic before that. But the triconsonantal root GHD appears in 2 Kings in Hebrew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.72.31 (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Adding about the usage of word in the Quran and the hadiths in the lead section
I've added about the usage of the word in the Quran and hadiths in the lead section of article which I think is important to illustrate the term and to understand it in the Quranic context and the context of the hadiths. If someone has a problem or would like to raise a question then please do ask. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 12:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The context you added is from biased sources. Please use an unbiased source

One of your sources is a website designed only to publish material against Islam and the author of the book you used is an Israeli author who writes against Islam. I have already mentioned this in the last section on this pageFreeatlastChitchat (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2015
The sentence that uses source #6 is false deceptive. The sentence reads "In the context of Quran, the word occurs 164 times[6] and is most of the time implied or the term Qital (fighting) is used." The sentence makes the argument that the word jihad occurs in the Quran 164 times however, this is immediately contradicted in the same sentence saying that it is only implied 164 times or that some other word (qital) is used, which is not in any way synonymous with the term jihad, and seeks to deceive the reader into believing that the verses are about jihad when they are of an entirely different subject. Additionally the sentence references an illegitimate source that is not only bias but inaccurate in many ways. Finally, the sentence is in immediate contradiction with the following sentence that states, ""Jihad" as the exact form "JHAD"(جهاد) appears only twice in the Qur'an (Qur'an 60:1[7] and 9:24[8])." I would suggest removing the sentence ("In the context of Quran, the word occurs 164 times[6] and is most of the time implied or the term Qital (fighting) is used.) which uses source #6 (http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Themes/jihad_passages.html) along with its source from this entry. If one were to examine source #6 she/he would realize the count is based on a completely false definition of jihad and that it is far from any academic work and does not meet the standards for a reputable source that can be used in Wikipedia.

Thank you, Anton

Zea.Anton (talk) 02:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have removed the information as the source is biased. When a new source is found the information can go back in. Thank you for pointing out. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 02:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * (Pinging since he added the content being discussed. Stickee (talk) 05:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC))
 * your edit summary said you were removing 2 biased sources, however you actually removed 4 sources. Which were the 2 concerned? I assume answering-islam.org is the first, since it is addressed in the above comment. Stickee (talk) 05:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed the biased sources which were the main source. The other two sources are just being used to source verses and hadith. They are not important, as you can pick up Quran verses from any source you want they almost always agree. However I apologize for not mentioning this in my summary, I should have done so. the second source which I found to be biased is http://www.meforum.org/ which according to its own words is " a Philadelphia-based think tank, which works to define and promote American interests in the Middle East and protect Western values from Middle Eastern threats."FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry I did not notice this before. Now that I think you are right. Answering Islam and meforum are biased. Answering Islam contains many mistakes in articles and ignores other scripture while only taking those into account which might prove its argument further correct. Sorry I did not notice this. I'll try to find reliable sources on the topic. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:22, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2015
Jihad means to fight with the evil in you. who derailed you from the path of god

Jdakhtar24 (talk) 07:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 09:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Content forks
Rape jihad and Anal jihad have been added to the article by User:Bryce Carmony. Can you please explain why you are adding these here? You know that these are Fringe, Content forks and a lot of other things which means they should not be here. Feel free to explain why should be included, even when one of the two is up for deletionFreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sexual jihad is listed and Rape jihad would be something of interest a reader would look for who is reading an article Jihad I personally think we should merge Rape and anal jihad into sexual jihad or possible name a new article Sexuality in jihad but the way we improve articles is by linking them so readers and editors read from one to the next. Bryce Carmony (talk) 11:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The natural and non POV agenda based way is to mention these in sexual jihad and as sexual jihad is linked here there is no need to link these two seperately. I have added them to [Sexual Jihad]] and that is linked here FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

What counts as a colonial war?
The fulani war is listed as an anticolonial war. But it involved no colonial powers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thermocycler (talk • contribs) 22:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

An issue.
It is stated: "Of the 199 references to jihad in perhaps the most standard collection of hadith — Bukhari — all assume that jihad means warfare."

This is utterly false. Here's one example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HakimPhilo (talk • contribs) 13:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

All of the 164 verses, jihad is implied or the term Qital (fighting) is used
This is factually incorrect, there are many verses in which jihad doesn't mean qital, a classical example is

فلا تطع الكافرين وجاهدهم به جهادًا كبيرًا " 52 /الفرقان - 25

--HakimPhilo (talk) 21:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

- and what would that mean in English? I assume there are canonical translations of this. Is this the whole verse? Staszek Lem (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I deleted this sentence, because this is not what the cited source says. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

what jehad is ?
WHAT JIHAD IS

The Arabic word "jihad" is often translated as "holy war," but in a purely linguistic sense, the word " jihad" means struggling or striving.

The arabic word for war is: "al-harb

In a religious sense, as described by the Quran and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (s), "jihad" has many meanings. It can refer to internal as well as external efforts to be a good Muslims or believer, as well as working to inform people about the faith of Islam.

If military jihad is required to protect the faith against others, it can be performed using anything from legal, diplomatic and economic to political means. If there is no peaceful alternative, Islam also allows the use of force, but there are strict rules of engagement. Innocents - such as women, children, or invalids - must never be harmed, and any peaceful overtures from the enemy must be accepted.

Military action is therefore only one means of jihad, and is very rare. To highlight this point, the Prophet Mohammed told his followers returning from a military campaign: "This day we have returned from the minor jihad to the major jihad," which he said meant returning from armed battle to the peaceful battle for self-control and betterment.

In case military action appears necessary, not everyone can declare jihad. The religious military campaign has to be declared by a proper authority, advised by scholars, who say the religion and people are under threat and violence is imperative to defend them. The concept of "just war" is very important.

The concept of jihad has been hijacked by many political and religious groups over the ages in a bid to justify various forms of violence. In most cases, Islamic splinter groups invoked jihad to fight against the established Islamic order. Scholars say this misuse of jihad contradicts Islam.

Examples of sanctioned military jihad include the Muslims' defensive battles against the Crusaders in medieval times, and before that some responses by Muslims against Byzantine and Persian attacks during the period of the early Islamic conquests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:5600:5D:46FA:A862:4711:3776:C688 (talk) 10:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2015
Please undo recent revisions 676897103 and 676897103 by Tnoamen. Clear violation of NPOV.

Abu Adderall (talk) 15:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ By another - Arjayay (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Jihad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150721212544/http://www.rissc.jo/index.php/english-publications.html to http://rissc.jo/index.php/english-publications.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Representation of meaning of jihad as "Holy War" in second paragraph.
Firstly forgive me if I have not done this properly, new to this.

The article states " Jihad is often translated as "Holy War",[10][11][12] although this term is controversial"

I believe it should state something more along the lines of "Jihad is often misinterpreted as "Holy War" and this term is controversial".

The citations linked (especially the news article) don't actually translate it as Holy War (as they are not scholarly) merely just call it that. Jihad is not Holy War and in that context I do not think translation is the right word as it suggests actual scholars translate it as Holy War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.183.234 (talk) 12:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The wiki entry for jihad seems different from my original reading. I had begun to suspect that wikipedia might be forum for anti muslim propoganda.

Your comment is certainly making a very careful distinction bases in the truthful meaning of the word.

Keep up the good work. DHorse1 (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the second paragraph is still unclear, and maybe even the first. The opinion of Bernard Lewis seems to be that Jihad really is "Holy War", although this is stated in an obscure way ("understood the obligation of jihad in a military sense").  So if his opinion is to be presented, it should be clearly labelled as being in contrast to the mainstream scholarly view that Jihad refers primarily to inner struggle.  (And as to your suspicion that the wikipedia is a forum for anti-Muslim propaganda, i think the wikipedia tends to reflect the biases of the ambient culture.  Since the sources the wikipedia considers reliable are somewhat anti-Muslim, its articles come out that way as well.  There's not too much that can be done about that, but if there are egregious errors they can be pointed out, and hopefully corrected.)  Son of eugene (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Jihad is often translated as "Holy War", although this term is controversial.
Who agrees that we should change this? --CounterTime (talk) 15:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Correction in second sentence
This line: "...the word jihād is a noun meaning "to strive, to apply oneself, to struggle, to persevere".  I would change the word "noun" to "verb" here if that is, in fact, the Arabic definition of jihad. Jaco66 (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Dore Gold
It seems that Dore Gold is only a diplomat, and doesn't have the necessary credentials to be quoted in this article. So we all agree that we should remove his input in the Jihad section? 18:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Duty of Muslims to maintain the religion
I would question the definition that Jihad is a "religious duty of Muslims to maintain the religion". Defend and promote would be more accurate.Royalcourtier (talk) 04:52, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

jihad\struggle
jihad does not in any way mean "holy war" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.99.53.66 (talk) 23:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * That is not entirely correct. One of the stages of Jihad is "Jihad by the Sword", which can easily be defined as Holy War.Royalcourtier (talk) 04:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry to be that guy, but, in point of fact, "Holy War" would be rendered in arabic as al-harb al-muqadasa (and not jihad) which, as Abou El Fadl eloquently explains, the Islamic theological tradition did not have a notion of "Holy war" which is not an expression used by the Quranic text or by Muslim theologians. He further states that in Islamic theology, war is never holy; it is either justified or not. (see his The Great Theft, p.222)
 * 10:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Stages of Jihad
There should be a section on the different stages of Jihad, and one on the evolution of Jihad over time.Royalcourtier (talk) 04:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "stages of Jihad"?
 * 10:10, 25 December 2015 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)

Ibn Taymiyya's views
It seems to me that the article distorts Ibn Taymiyya's views on the subject. For instance the source Wahhabi Islam: From Revival and Reform to Global Jihad by Natana J. Delong-Bas states in p.256 that: "the permissibility of overthrowing a ruler who is classified as an unbeliever due to a failure to adhere to Islamic law,"   "the absolute division of the world into dar al-kufr and dar al-Islam,"    "the labeling of anyone not adhering to one's particular interpretation of Islam as an unbeliever," and   "the call for blanket warfare against non-Muslims, particularly Jews and Christians.". However she gives absolutely no sources for these claims; On the other hand, the source "The Islamic Law of War: Justifications and Regulations" by Ahmed Al-Dawoody draws a completely different view. For example he says in p.78: "At the outset, it should be mentioned that Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728/1328) was the first scholar to pay adequate attention to the question of sabab qitāl al- kuffār (justifications for war against unbelievers).", then he concludes in p.79 "In line with this position, Ibn Taymiyyah emphasized that jihād is “a defensive war against unbelievers whenever they threatened Islam.”63" and in the notes one finds with 63: Khadduri, The Islamic Law of Nations, p. 59; see al-Zuhaylī, “''Islam and International Law'',” p. 281. On Ibn Taymiyyah’s understanding of jihād, see Sharif, “Jihād in Ibn Taymīyyah’s Thought,” pp. 183–203. Should one therefore delete that paragraph? --CounterTime (talk) 22:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * What do you think? 15:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)


 * Delong-Bas' book is a RS, so we can't simply delete her perspective. If we there's a disagreement between RSs, we should investigate how much support the alternative views have, so we can determine how much weight they should be given here. al-Zuhayli's paper is available here, but I can't easily access the relevant pages from the other sources cited by Al-Dawoody. His book, however, is available online, as is his dissertation on which it's based , and one can find there additional discussion of Ibn Taymiyyah's views on the subject and what other modern scholars thought about them. It sounds doable, but will require a bit of effort. Eperoton (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Speaking up against "radical-Muslim Jihad"
On FoxNews Channel, we saw (Oliver North, "War Stories") a special that included the story of the beginning of more than a dozen creating the "Muslim Reform Movement". This is an amazing development and is an idea whose time has come, as ISIS/ISIL goes to many nations. Take a look at their website.  http://MuslimReformMovement.org/  AstroU (talk) 05:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Article Locked???
This article is locked, why?

I'm **very** concerned that members of American liberal academia are in charge of this article (like most WP articles), and are promoting extreme pro-Islamist/Jihadist viewpoints in the interest of diversity at the expense of national security.

If you still have a spine in your back, you'll reveal yourselves and explain your position.

Oh, you won't? ... Well, I didn't think so. ... So, nothing changes here, and we're back to locked articles controlled by the anonymous super-editor cabal.... Yawn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.51.217.118 (talk) 06:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Create a Wikipedia ID/password (and reveal yourself) and you too can edit to your heart's content. -- AstroU (talk) 05:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

month of prohibition ?
Isn't there a month during which all fighting is prohibited ? I thought that i read that in the Qur'an (long ago). If so, which month is that ? --Jerome Potts (talk) 00:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Removing links to other articles because lack of sources
I would like to ask Eperoton why is he [ deleting edits] that are linking to other articles on the grounds that they do not have sources? First of all, the edit contains links to articles with plenty of sources. Second, even if we agree that dubbing sources is required, wouldn't it be much better for Wikipedia that insted of undoing edits, Eperoton just add the sources himself? --Stalik (talk) 15:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Please consult WP:V. Wikilinks are not citations and you shouldn't expect other editors to source your edits for you. If you're aware of citations in another article, add them or expect the material to be removed per policy. Eperoton (talk) 15:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Jihad by the sword
The section on Jihad by the Sword adopts an entirely benign and defensive interpretation of jihad. That is not the mainstream view. There are two main interpretations, which could be called defensive and offensive. The article essentially omits reference to the latter, despite it being the majority interpretation amongst Islamic scholars.Royalcourtier (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The expansionist conception of jihad was mainstream in the classical era, and this is reflected in the history section, though it could be more clearly organized. In current usage, to which the "Warfare (Jihad bil Saif)" section refers, it is mainly associated with some circles which are not exactly mainstream. However, this section does look odd, as it seems to discuss classical and not current usage. We need to verify the sources and sort out this confusion. Eperoton (talk) 23:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Sufi usage
For the sake of completeness, mention should be made of the use of "jihād" in Sufi texts. For example, Najmeddin Kobra (13th century) writes (in Fawatih al-jalal wa fawatih al-jamal, quoted in Henry Corbin, L'Homme de lumière dans le soufisme iranien): "My friend, shut your eyelids and look at what you see. If you tell me: I see nothing – you are mistaken. You can see very well, but unfortunately the darkness of your nature is so close to you that it obstructs your inner vision to the point that you do not discern it. If you want to perceive it, see it before you with your eyes closed, begin by diminishing or putting away from you something of your nature. But the path leading to that end is spiritual combat (jihād). And the meaning of spiritual combat is to devote all your efforts to repelling or killing the enemies. The enemies in this case are nature, your appetitive soul, and the demon of your self." --Wegesrand (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)