Talk:Jihad/Archive 6

Reverting
I've archived the recent discussion that kept having parts deleted and restored. I'm requesting the following:

Please start discussing only substantive issues about the article. The disputes about jihad should be described, not engaged in. Don't post anything that could be construed as a personal attack. Secondly, I ask that any anon IPs get user names. No 3RR-violation made by an anon IP regarding this talk page or the article will be acted on by me, and I'll consider blocking any anon IP who seems to be starting trouble. I also ask that everyone editing this page edit using only one account. Third, if someone deletes other people's posts from this page, adds personal attacks, or adds material not relevant to discussing the article, don't revert. Post a note on my talk page or e-mail me, and I'll try to sort it out. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:22, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Toropov and Anonymous Editor
Why do Toropov and Anonymous Editor keep whitewashing the murders committed by Islamic fundamentalists? Why do Toropov and Anonymous Editor keep inserting their biased, Islamic-centric POV into the Jihad article? Note that I don't think that Sloat is biased or a whitewasher in the way Toropov and Anonymous Editor are. Sloat seems reasonable and open-minded.

I haven't made any changes to the lengthy history of pre-contemporary Jihad. What I have done is add very relevant points about Al Qaeda (which called for Jihad against "Jews and Crusaders" as far back as 1998, and which subsequently has supported, inspired, and committed murders of thousands of innocent civilians), Hezbollah, the many terror groups that use the name Islamic Jihad, Abu Sayyaf, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Hamas. How on earth can any unbiased and reasonable person say that a discussion of Jihad is complete and relevant if it does not make at least some reference to these groups? I did not make any changes to the article that said most Muslims support these murderers who call for Jihad and often include Jihad in their names. The reason I did not make such a change is that I do not believe that most Muslims support these murderers. Nonetheless, groups that murder in the name of Jihad are not isolated, they are not small, and they have wide followings (even though their followings may be only a minority of the Muslim population).

The article includes myths about "Liberal Muslims". Read the Wiki about Liberal Movements Within Islam. A fluff piece. It is unable to cite a single example of a "Liberal Muslim" party that is in power in any country on Earth. It is unable to cite a single example of a Muslim country whose leadership consists of "Liberal Muslims". The only examples of specific Liberal Muslims that the article cites are three non-prominent groups in North America. However, in the Jihad article there are ridiculous references to what "Liberal Muslims" think about Jihad, yet there is no evidence provided that these "Liberal Muslims" are sizable groups. Indeed, there is no specific evidence provided in the Jihad article about who these "Liberal Muslims" are. Consider the following fluff from the Jihad article:

"Among followers of liberal movements within Islam, however, the context of these late verses is that of a specific "war in progress" and not a universally binding set of instructions upon the faithful. These liberal Muslims have tended to promote an understanding of jihad that rejects or minimizes the identification of jihad with armed struggle, choosing instead to emphasize principles of non-violence."

What a joke. Some unnamed "liberal Muslims have tended to promote an understanding of jihad that rejects . . . the identification of jihad with armed struggle", yet there are no citations of who these people are or any evidence that they have wide followings.

--PeterChehabi 03:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm archiving again. I'm asking all editors of goodwill to stop posting or responding to attacks and insults, no matter how provocative the attack is. Anyone who continues to respond, I'll define as having no goodwill and will consider blocking for disruption of Wikipedia. This pro- and anti-Islam stuff has spread across several pages, causing pages to be protected, and editors to be blocked, so it has to stop, and you can either stop it yourselves, or start being blocked for disruption.


 * Whoever the Muslim woman is, I think you're ElKabong, which means you're Enviroknot and KaintheScion. If you're also a regular editor, you'll be found out eventually and probably hard-banned, so if you care about editing Wikipedia, I'd advise you to quit while you're ahead.


 * Anonymous editor, I'm assuming you're also a sockpuppet and it's fairly obvious whose. I'm asking you to put your other accounts into quiet retirement, and resume editing with just one account. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:52, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * I am whose sockpuppet, SlimVirgin? The only reason I was using anon IP before is because I am on a '3rr violation' (by you) and was being made personal attacks against by a user who has used several sockpuppets (I think you know who). Hopefully you will enforce the ban against him and clearly you can see he prefers to use profanity and many different anon IPs and names to perform vandalism. Who would you suspect me to be a sockpuppet for? Btw, there is no muslim woman doing the edits, it is just enviroknot and his made up stories. :) -- Anonymous editor


 * If you edited while being blocked for 3RR violation, you will be blocked for 24 hours again. Please treat the 3RR with utmost seriousness: it was formulated to stop intractable edit wars on contentious pages. Admins will react to any violations of a 3RR block through the use of anonymous editing or the use of sockpuppets with further blocks, and if necessary will take these violations to the arbitration committee. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Tabu shi da yu maybe if you adequately deal with personal attacks/user page vandalisms being made against users by other notorius sockpuppet using ones, perhaps users such as I will not resort to 'violating' the 3rr and instead replying to the personal attacks. Btw, I only usedone anon IP, while one of other users who was making personal attacks has used several along with several user names. Deal with him justly and I won't violate 3rr. There is no need for double standard. I thank you anyways for your concern. --Anonymous editor 19:13, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * Let me understand: did you violate the 3RR because of personal attacks? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes absolutely. It is all enviroknot and his band on anon IPs. He makes useless personal attacks against anyone who opposes his biased opinion, uses extreme profanity and has a long history of vandalizing Islam-related articles. Frankly, I think he is desperate and intimidated by the fact that he has been proven to be involved in several sockpuppets and that he has no legitimate argument to make. So he pathetically uses profane terms in order to compensate for this. If you observe the language of the many anon IPs that were making personal attacks you will find it eventually leads to him. Regardless, this is indeed the reason I was responding to the personal attacks, but ofcourse if the administrators had dealed with the situation accordingly, this would have never happened. Btw, I barely made any edits to this article, so I don't know what peter is talking about. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 05:49, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Call for comments
I see that my request for comments was archived by Slimvirgin, but since I was asleep I had no way of responding to it until now. I can see that it doesn't lead to anything constructive whatsoever and lots of sockpuppets, ip's and blockings have ensued, something I feared for would happen. The first comments seems interesting as it is the only information really given about the dispute at hand so let's concentrate on that.

'''I'd like to remind everyone that we are writing an encyclopædia here, not an essay. We report verified facts and that's it. No religious POV or any POV are welcome in any article on Wikipedia.'''


 * However, there are no liberal Muslim movements that have significant power in any Muslim states, nor is it clear that such liberal Muslim movements have significant followings in any Muslim states. This is a matter of public record, documented and verified. Every Islamic-based state, and even states that are not Islamic but have enough of an Islamic presence that they have significant political power, is currently backsliding or worse on human rights and in the introduction of barbaric Sharia law. Islamists wish to remove this sentence because it presents an accurate picture of the current political situation in regard to Jihad.


 * If this claim is documented and verified then provide a source. If a source of significant importance can be cited, then it is eligible for inclusion. This goes for all facts reported, not just this point. Please remember that. Now, regardless of any POV a good faith editor might have in this case, we aren't interested in hiding or providing information if it is not correct either way. If some information cannot be backed up by a source, we don't include it, it's really that simple. This has nothing to do with POV, it's simple logic. I hear you argue that on many places in Wikipedia, information are reported without being backed up by a source. Yes, this is true, but that information is not disputed by several parties and hence is not verified or it# is verified on the basis of common knowledge. Do you see the difference?
 * Canadian Muslims pushed for barbaric Sharia law
 * The murder of Theo Van Gogh and ongoing behavior of Muslims in The Netherlands
 * Amnesty International concerns on Saudi Arabia
 * 7 Saudis jailed for the "crime" of being Christian freed on condition that they renounce their faith, after torture
 * And most damning of all... IN THE HEART OF AMERICA, Where one would expect to be able to find liberal, peaceful Muslims...
 * "Free Muslims Against Terrorism" holds a rally...
 * but nobody shows up.
 * - The attendance number for the event was less than 75 people. Muslims having a rally to call for the extermination of Jews or support for "war against the infidels" have absolutely no problem getting 500 people even when they don't have a nationally advertised event.
 * The Islamists will claim "but there are liberal muslims", but where are they? Can they supply evidence of even a single liberal Muslim group or political party with a significant following? Of course they can't. And what's really funny is that the same jerks who are trying to push this nonsense about the existence of "liberal Muslims" are the same jerks sending money to buy bullets for Hamas and Hezbollah.


 * A discussion of the military dimensions of jihad within Islam follows below. - the word in question is "below"; I think this merely has been caught up in the reverts, and is irrelevant to the discussion.


 * This whole sentence can be thrown out. It's just filler for something that will be described below it anyway.


 * They are also likely to emphasize Islamic traditions that endorse tolerance for other religious and social groups. - Islamists seem to object to the "and social" section, because it exposes the fact that the war type of Jihad is as much about societal factors (such as the subjugation of certain tribes by other tribes as Mohammed did in his time) as it is about strictly "defending Dar-Al-Islam"(the domain of Islam) and subduing/converting "Dar Al-Harb (the domain of war).


 * I'm entirely sure I understand this point. As a natural observer I see nothing wrong with either of the two possibilities. Can someone please explain this a little better to me.


 * Notably, the brutal terrorist tactics used by Jihad groups against Israel, the United States, and European Union member states, the Philippines, and non-Muslim persons in Muslims states suh as Egypt and Turkey, has not led to a large outcry against the religious legitimacy of such groups. - Islamists object to the phrasing "brutal terrorist tactics"... I would believe that the word "terrorist" should probably be there, though "brutal" is never likely to pass POV muster.


 * I agree. The word "brutal" is POV and should not be included. Simple as that. Again I like to remind everyone that we are dealing with facts. Whether a fact is "brutal" or not is not up to us to report.


 *  Some Muslims believe that a person who dies as a part of struggle against oppression as a shahid (religious martyr) is assured a place in Jannah (Paradise). Accounts in the hadith and the Qur'an of the exceptional rewards specifically awaiting martyrs...  - Islamist insertion is the word "Some"; inarguable as a point, as the Koran specifically states reward for all who fight in wars that are definitively Jihad. The weasel word "some" makes the sentence inaccurate.


 * Again this is correct. This section should be rewritten to avoid weasel words and broad generalisations that are unverifiable.


 * One can say that virtually ALL Muslims believe that "shahids" go to paradise. The Quran states clearly, in numerous places, that martyrs do not merely go to paradise but are actually in paradise at the PRESENT time. This is a fine point, but Islamic theology actually teaches that the martyr never actually experiences death, but instead goes immediatly to paradise, whereas those who do not die as martyrs ("shahids") do not go immediatly to paradise and do experience death - they stay in their graves until the Day of Judgement. Thus it is undeniable that the Quran and related Islamic religious literature (hadiths, etc.) assert that shahids go to paradise. As a matter of emperically verifiable evidence for encylopediac purposes, it abundently clear that (all) Muslims believe that shahids go to paradise when they die, just as (all) Muslims believe that Allah is the One God. Only the wildest of appologists would try to stick a weasal word like "SOME Musims" into this particular point, and yet here we are. -Zeno of Elea 23:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The U.S. military's 2003 invasion of Iraq has sparked violent retaliation by a wide variety of opponents, some of who are relatively secular in orientation, others of whom are Islamist. Some of the groups have captured and murdered Iraqis and foreigners, as well as deliberately targeting innocent, non-combatant Iraqi civilians in murderous bombing and shooting attacks that kill/has killed up to several dozen people at a time. The beheading of civilians, even those involved with the United States military, has been denounced by some Islamic religious leaders, although it is often noted that these leaders have tended to be government-appointed leaders and are not necessarily reflective of the mass opinion in their communities or the opinions of popularly supported Islamic religious leaders. For example, in the Muslim world, the killing of Nick Berg was condemned by some. Scholars at Al-Azhar University in Cairo, state-controlled/run university, issued a declaration of condemnation, as did numerous Muslim groups in the West including the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Shiite Islamist group Hezbollah and Palestinian nationalist group Hamas denounced the murder, although at the same time both groups supported and carried out similar acts of violence and murder against innocent, non-combatant civilians. Hezbollah issued a statement calling it a "horrible act that does an immense wrong to Islam and Muslims by a group which falsely pretends to follow the precepts of the religion of pardon." - The Islamist version pretty much amounts to a whitewash here - as above, it is not hard to find rhetorical denunciations of "terrorism" (especially those which quickly add "but the Jews are the real terrorists"), but it is entirely hard to find sincere ones and even harder to find those with which the greater Muslim population actually agrees.


 * The word "murderous" is perfectly fine if an action has been taken that has lead to the loss of life. Then that action is murderous. It's the same as if somebody had "murdered" somebody else. You wouldn't say the person had "disabled" or "neutralised" his victim. Since this information presented here seems to be so disputed, we need sources for all claims and these sources needs to be relatively verifiable and acceptable. Therefore I propose:


 * That the editors who edit these articles try to discuss between themselves on how to find sources for their respective claims.
 * That the editors discuss among themselves on how to change the text according to sources produced
 * If no source can be found for a claim, the editors should discuss whether that information is disputed. If the information is disputed by two editors, it should be taken out of the article and not replaced until a satisfiable source has been found


 * We have to start somewhere. Endlessly edit warring and sock puppeteering will not work. Not now, not ever. I have also noticed that the attacks seems to be floating between personal and content. Let's try to focus on the content, as this is Wikipedia, the free encyclopædia. It is the content that counts and how that content is verifiable, not what you feel about someone else.


 * Also notice that I have commented on the information I consider are relevant. The rest of the archived discussion seemed just to be attacks of several kinds. If someone is upset that I have commented on the view of one editor, you have only yourself to blame. I see very little contribution from anyone else, and so I have to work with what I have.


 * I want comments on this. Any further personal attacks will not be tolerated as it leads nowhere. Inter\Echo 09:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The main problem I see with this article (and many of the Islam articles) is massive generalizations. "Muslim" is a self-conferred title and therefore no matter what you think Islam preaches those who call themselves Muslims have a say in defining Islam.  Therefore statements such as Islam says or the statement above, introduction of barbaric Sharia law are complete nonesense.  Sharia is "God's Law".  There is in no sense codified Sharia universally agreed upon.  Fiqh is the attempt to create a workable Sharia from the Qur'an (and what hadith the fiqah accepts).  Therefore we cannot make such generalizations about Sharia.  If we wish to talk about classical Sharia, that would refer to Hanafi, Hanbali, Shafi, and Maliki, that is another matter.  However, even if a minority, the schools of thought led by Fazlur Rahman and Asma Barlas are a completely different way of reading the Qur'an... which obviously reads to a different view on what Sharia is.  I do not claim these people to be a majority but they are significant enough to make it a misnomor to make generalizations about Islamic law from one view and one view only.  Population and support statistics are so convuluded, it is very difficult to tell who really believes what about Islam.  There are also tons of shoddy statistics out there (as we can see with Muslim population in the US - I don't know which is right, but a lot are wrong).  As we saw during the complaints against BrandonYusuf (rightful or wrongful complaints I do not know) some of the editors talked about the myth of liberal Islam.  As we can see from Fazlur Rahman and many others the theory and books are not myths.  As for adherents?  In the "Muslim world" we do not know how many adherents there are.  I do know that there are liberal Muslims living where I live.  What does that mean?  It means that making sweeping statements about the nature of a religion contrary to the beliefs of a section of adherents is just bad encyclopedic writing.  That is what I am primarily against.  Demonization of Islam and Muslims as if they are one cohesive group with the same views.  If you look in the UK there are pro-gay-right Muslims.  We must stop massive generalization if we hope to have any credibility... and this problem is systemic. (is that what a request for comments means I should do?) gren 11:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * gren, you wrote (quote) "If we wish to talk about classical Sharia, that would refer to Hanafi, Hanbali, Shafi, and Maliki, that is another matter. However, even if a minority, the schools of thought led by Fazlur Rahman and Asma Barlas are a completely different way of reading the Qur'an... which obviously reads to a different view on what Sharia is.  I do not claim these people to be a majority but they are significant enough to make it a misnomor to make generalizations about Islamic law " Who is Fazlur Rahman? He appears to be someone who lived between 1911 and 1988. Are you seriously proposing that the classical Islamic laws and Quranic interpretations, agreed upon for nearly a thousand years, are as significant as the opinions of a Muslim who was born in 1911? Your second example appears to be a contemporary Muslim woman named Asma Barlas. While the books of classical shar'iah and tafsir are found in mosques across the world, you mean to say that the works of one Fazlur Rahman (1911-1988) are as significant upon the beliefs of very large numbers of Muslims? Well it is perhaps possible. But Fazlur Rahman was a professor at the University of Chicago, and we read that he had "a disastrous spell in Pakistan during the 1960s, attempting to reform the teaching of Islam at tertiary level" and that "he is virtually unknown outside of intellectual circles ... It remains to be seen whether Muslims by pondering his works will be inspired to popularise his ideas." [www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/531762/posts]. Basically you are saying that a little known American Islamist reformer, and intellectual, who died in 1988, has as much bearing on what the shar'iah is as the original sources and the classical scholars whose books can be found in nearly every mosque in the world that has a collection of books involving something other than the Quran?


 * But I digress. No matter what classical shar'iah says about Jihad, or what Fazlur Rahman's "reading of the Qur'an" says about Jihad, and no matter happens in the world, the ground reality is that the vast majority of Muslims in the world will not engage in Jihad. It is human nature to avoid unnecessary, life threatening situations. Most people are just concerned with their own livelihood and do not want to go off on materially unrewarding holy wars. Everywhere from Palestine, to Iraq, to Europe and America, the vast majority of Muslims have never and will never consider embarking on a holy war. This much is obvious to anyone. Common sense dictates that only a small minority of Muslims, in the modern world, will ever actually adhere to the tenants of Jihad, regardless of contemporary political or military cicrcumstances. This raises the question as to what the beliefs are of the minority of Muslim extremists who DO embark on Jihad. Well I can assure that the people who actually take the military tenents of Jihad seriously and act on them are not people who get their shar'iah from Fazlur Rahman (1911-1988), they are not liberal Muslims, they are not pro-gay-right Muslims, and your "liberal" Muslim neighbours are not likely to be amongst these extremists. This article is about Jihad, and therefore it is about people who embark on Jihad and the question of how such people religiously justify their actions. This really has nothing to do with what percentage of Muslims should be called "liberal," because the ground reality is that even if 0% of Muslims are "liberal," the vast majority will still never embark on Jihad, regardless of contemporary political or military circumstances. And furthermore, even if 99% of Muslims are "liberal," the fact remains that there is a minority of violent extremists who adhere to and practice tenents of Jihad, as derived from non-liberal, fundamentalist, and classical sources of religious doctrine. -Zeno of Elea 01:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Current version whitewashed. Pretends Jihad and violence is Western media invention
Unfortunately, I think it was Sloat, who is otherwise reasonable from what I have seen, who made the ridiculous edit of putting in the caption "The Western Media" for the explanation that the Western Media AND Islamic fundamentalists such as Islamic Jihad in its many different forms (all of which deliberately murder innocent civilians) have helped give Jihad modern meanings and connotations that are not always in line with the historical meaning. By titling the section "The Western Media" a POV was put in, namely that violent Jihad against innocent civilians is a "Western Media" invention even though the reality is that many Islamic terror groups deliberately murder innocent civilians as a core part of their Jihad.

I have never argued that all Muslims are violent terrorists or all Muslims murder innocent civilians. Far from it. I have always been careful to put responsibility on the specific groups that engage in such murderous Jihad, including Al Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hezbollah, Abu Sayyaf, and the Muslim Brotherhood.

To leave out a discussion of the murders of innocent civilians conducted under the guise of Jihad renders the article woefully incomplete for today's world. Moreover, the whitewashing of this ugly aspect of Jihad demonstrates that there are several people putting POV's into the Jihad article edits.

--PeterChehabi 01:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It was not me. My edits were about removing the crap that implies that all 1.something billion Muslims are terrorists. I didn't make this western media argument. If you don't think all Muslims are violent then we should not have statements like "there are no liberal muslims" in the article.csloat 02:46, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * You seem awfully well informed about this topic, PeterChehabi -- I can hardly believe I've missed you up to this point. Can I ask how long you've been a Wikipedian? Cheers, BrandonYusufToropov 02:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * And countdown to BrandonYusufToropov calling him a sockpuppet shall now begin... it won't be long. Don't bother giving him a response, Peter.Enviroknot 04:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Peter isn't enviroknot. I would just ignore envirokainkabong wherever you see him.Yuber(talk) 04:33, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We gathered some sources and talked a bit before this case got caught up in an ArbCom filing. I thought we might get somewhere, but as a case has been filed, I leave it to the ArbCom to decide now. Good luck guys. Inter\Echo 07:56, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Let us examine precisely what the editor has written in the new article section titled "The Western Media". First we must examine the title itself. Why is there a need for an article subsection titled "the Western Media" in the Wikipedia article titled "Jihad?" If there is subsection called "The Western Media" then why is there not a subsection called "The Eastern Media?" Are we writing an article on how the "Western media" portrays Jihad, or are we writing on article on Jihad itself? What exactly is "the Western media" and why have we specifically chosen to concentrate on this type of media only? Can I write a subsection of the portrayal of Islam in the South American media, or is South America far enough west of Mecca to be considered part of "the Western media?" This is pretty ridiculous. "The Western media" has as much to do with the topic of Jihad as the Japanese media. The subsection is completely inappropriate. Furthermore, not a single source is cited by the editor. No studies on the portrayal of Jihad in "the Western media" were cited by the editor, no evidence was offered. All that was offered is the editor's personal and vaugly worded generalizations about the portrayal of Jihad in "the Western Media," a subject that is quite seperate from the subject of Jihad itself (which is the subject of this WIkipedia article, of course). -Zeno of Elea 23:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Generally what we have here is failure to realize that Jihad exists at many different levels and that the aggressive one is perhaps the most extreme. This is a common misperception in the western media which sometimes uses the terms Jihad and so-called 'Islamist terrorism' interchangably and constantly and so has become the common POV of many people. The 'eastern media' has not had as large an effect on shaping the perception of Jihad as it is rarely used in the same context. I should also point out that before the specialized section 'Western Media' perception was created there were users who were generally trying to insert this exact POV material into the 'General Rule' section and that truly destroys the article's credibility because western perception is NOT the general rule for Jihad. Jihad can have all spiritual, mental and physical meanings. Also when we say that Muslim groups such as Hamas who use violence for separatist means are on a so-called 'murderous Jihad' is a failure to understand the different perspectives because one's terrorist is considered another's freedom fighter; we cannot generalize all of these groups. The reason for the western media section would also be that in different medias around the world, the same groups, actions, and ideologies would not necessarily be Jihad-related and thus, this is usually a western definition. Also it should be noted that there are several groups who cite Jihad but not necessarily in an agressive context. The muslim brotherhood is an example who is a political party and uses Jihad in a political context.


 * Lastly, by saying that there are 'NO liberal muslims', this is POV and it is peter's own opinion. There are liberals in every religion and it all depends on how you see it. For example someone in China who sees the media air regular coverage of the War on Iraq, might state that there are no liberal christians. Americans murder innocent civilians in Iraq, so perhaps I can say that they are on a murderous crusade and generalize that all americans 'deliberately murder innocent civilians'. I am personally against the western media section but since so many users insist on adding their POV on who is on a murderous Jihad or not, there are no designated sections for that and adding to factual sections about what the Qur'an states as general rules for Jihad is not appropriate in the least. I am open to other suggestions but users who accuse me of 'whitewashing' this article when really I have not added/edited much of the material show that they are clearly misinformed on this topic. --Anonymous editor 03:28, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * Anonymous editor, you wrote, "Generally what we have here is failure to realize that Jihad exists at many different levels and that the aggressive one is perhaps the most extreme ... Jihad can have all spiritual, mental and physical meanings." To the contrary, the Jihad article already has an entire subsection titled "As a General Struggle"; the subsection is devoted to this secondary meaning of Jihad as being "all spiritual, mental and physical meanings" (as you put it). So you see, we do not have here a failure to acknowledge this very secondary meaning of Jihad. Now, English Wikipedia is just one small outlet in "the Western media." But Wikipedia does have its bases covered in this case. Perhaps there are other media outlets that do not go to trouble of explaining to their audiences that Jihad can also sometimes (but very rarely) mean "all spiritual, mental and physical meanings." Perhaps you should lodge a complaint with these respective other media outlets. But what I can't understand is why you are lodging your complaint in the middle of our article here. This is not an encyclopedia article about media portrayal of Jihad, it is an encyclopedia article about Jihad. The purpose of an encyclopedia article is to succinctly and accurately summarize the subject described by the article's title. Perhaps you would like to start a new Wikipedia article about the portrayal of various aspects of Islam in the Western media - if you did one on Jihad, it would make an excellent article to link to from here. --Zeno of Elea 04:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * "The muslim brotherhood is an example who is a political party and uses Jihad in a political context." What do you mean, exactly? --Zeno of Elea 04:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I think Zeno that you are misinformed. Please read what I wrote with care as I am opposed to including this issue in the article in the first place. Many persistent POV editors do want this in the inappropriate sections of this article and you will find the many arguments that follow if it is deleted. See if I delete the section I am called an "islamist" and if I leave it there I am called a "whitewasher". This is funny as I have barely made any edits to this article. I never wrote any of the info in that section. If you have any ideas about should be done please suggest it because frankly the POV presented is very far from the topic of Jihad overall (I know what you mean).


 * Also to clarify, the muslim brotherhood is the largest oppositional political party in Egypt and if it ever said 'Jihad' it would mean politically and peacefully as a struggle as the party is pushing for democratic reforms to end Pres. Mubarak's elongated term as president. They are fairly liberal nationalists and that nationalism is why many get the misconception that for some odd reason they encourage violence. Thanks for your response. --Anonymous editor 06:06, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * "the muslim brotherhood is the largest oppositional political party in Egypt and if it ever said 'Jihad' it usually means politically and peacefully" Maybe we should we make special mention of the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood refers to its civil political activities in Egypt as "Jihad," though the Muslim Brotherhood has in the past also declared "Jihad" in the usual sense of holy war (e.g. Lebanese Civil War) and has also been involved in terrorist activities as well as the assassination of Egyptian Prime Minister Mahmud Nokrashi in 1948, the attempted assasination of Egyptian President Gamal Nasser in 1954, the attempted assasination of Syrian President Hafez al-Assad in 1980, and the assasination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat in 1981. --Zeno of Elea 07:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Zeno, the fact that one organization was involved in some "terrorist" activities does not have anything to do with the Jihad article and I can not find when they have ever used "Jihad" as a context for these poltically-motivated activities. Secondly we don't need all this extensive info about each individual organization and how it views Jihad, you know I was just using an example. I do not wish to go on a political debate in the talk section of a completely unrelated aticle. Lastly, so far I am not clear what you want changed in the article, please clarify this. for the most part I have agreed with you on the west media material in this article and I would support deleting it if it were not for the persistent POV editors (see my last message). So please clarify what you want changed. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 19:53, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * I oppose the inclusion of the section titled "The Western Media." That is all. --Zeno of Elea 22:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sourcing
Can we use Template:Note and Template:Ref in this article? For instance, I'd start with the following bit of text:


 * The more literal meaning of the word jihad is simply "a struggle", and so it is sometimes dubbed the "inner jihad". This "inner jihad" essentially refers to all the struggles that a Muslim could go through, in adhering to the religion. For example, a scholarly study of Islam is an intellectual struggle that some may refer to as "jihad", though it is not common for a scholar of Islam to refer to his studies as "engaging in jihad". In addition, there is a dimension to the "greater jihad" that includes overcoming selfish motives, desires, emotions, and the tendency to grant primacy to earthly pleasures and rewards.

Article Editing Locked
The article says it has been locked. When exactly will it be unlocked? It seems to me that most Islamist appologists who engage in revert wars, vandalism and POV pushing do not care to discuss their tactics in the Talk page. SO I'm confused as to how and when the article will be unlocked. Also, I read here that an arbcom filing has been made regarding the Jihad article. Is the arbcom filing specifically about the Jihad article, and if so where can we find the arbcom filing? --Zeno of Elea 22:28, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Zeno, these are the exact type of things that gets the article locked. You can not call anyone who edits this article from a non anti-Islamic POV an 'Islamist apologist'. Secondly, if it were not for vandalism tactics by certain editors out there that want this article to be nothing more than anti-Islamic propaganda, this article would not be as controversial. Surely you can not call anyone who defends Islam or defends neutrality or generally defends this article an 'islamist' or a 'whitewasher'. This article was locked in the first place because certain editors, several with anonymous IP addresses were altering the article. Mainly the concern was one user who used profanity, vandalized the article and made personal attacks against users repeatedly using a variety of different anon IPs. He kept calling everyone, even non-muslims, who did not agree with his anti-Islamic POV an 'Islamist vandal'. See edit history . Surely you will refrain from these attacks so that we can take a step forward in being able to edit this article. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 22:49, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * Apologetics is recgonized as a legitimate term describing a literary genre, particularly within the study of religion, and one who engages in apologetics is called an apologist This is not a personal attack, but a legitimate term that is regularly used in the academic study of religion (the opposite of appologetic is polemical). When my edits are systematically deleted / reverted, without any discussion or explaination in the talk page, by people such as Yuber (who is presently under Arbcom investigation, and is a known Islamic apologetics editor on Wikipedia, then I am entirely justified in referring to such users as apologist and strongly object to the notion that "apologist" is a personal attack and is therefore banned by Wikipedia official policy. -Zeno of Elea 23:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Zeno, you shouldn't expect cooperation from us if you keep using personal attacks.Yuber(talk) 22:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * "Apologist" is not a personal attack nor that my use of it was an ad hominem attack. It is quite amusing that you can refer to people as "anti-Islamic," "Islamophobic," and so forth (words that are controversial and rather pedestrian) while at the same time you consider "apologist" to be a personal attack. Whatever the case may be, it has taken you this long to merely make a post on the Talk page. If you feel personally attacked because I called you an apologist, then this is an issue that perhaps an admin could clear up. But this does not excuse you from not cooperating in the past or in the future. What exactly is your excuse for not cooperating with me in the past? Are you saying that I've made a personal attack against you at some point in the past? If so, please specify exactly when and how. --Zeno of Elea 23:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Surely, I never referred to anyone as "Islamophobic", whereas anti-Islamic I did indeed use because that is in reality the POV of one or two of the key editors (using anon IPs) and that has been proven. You should look through the edit history and really see who was pushing POV by using anon IPs. Generally why I stated "Apologist" as an inappropriate term is because not all people here who you are referring to are apologists; they could be neutral editors simply trying to remove vandalism that was previously/constantly inflicted on this article. And remember you called it "ISLAMIST" apologists which in several definitions means someone who adheres to extremism in Islam. Surely, you can realize that most editors are not of that genre and may take offense to that generalization.  Thanks. --Anonymous editor 00:05, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * "Surely, I never referred to anyone as "Islamophobic," whereas anti-Islamic I did indeed use"  Are you "Anonymous editor" or are you "Yuber"? Because my statement was directed at Yuber. Or are you Yuber's sock puppet, and has Yuber just become confused about which account to be using?
 * "Generally why I stated "Apologist" as an inappropriate term is because not all people here who you are referring to are apologists" Have I posted a list of Wikipedia Islamic apologists somewhere? Who are all the people that I've referred to as apologists??
 * "And remember you called it "ISLAMIST" apologists which in several definitions means someone who adheres to extremism in Islam." I prefer "Islamic apologist."
 * "Surely, you can realize that most editors are not of that genre and may take offense to that generalization." Please note that I did not refer to any specific person or persons as Islamic apologists. I referred to "Islamist appologists who engage in revert wars, vandalism and POV pushing do not care to discuss their tactics in the Talk page." That's a specific group of people; this group of people has certain proprties: they are (1) Islamist apologists, (2) wikipedia editor who engage in revert wars, vandalism and POV pushing, and I observed that people in this group do not discuss their reverts in the Talk page, and yet we are waiting for something to happen in the Talk page that will cause the article editing to be unlocked. So you see, I did not refer to any specific users. BUT somehow you and YUBER suddenly became offended at the notion that Islamist appologists, who engage in revert wars, etc. on this article, do not do much talking in the talk page. One can only wonder why only you and Yuber seem to be offended by this notion. --Zeno of Elea 00:49, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Zeno please name who you are talking to next time as I could not have known since both of your responses seem as a continuation of the last. No I am not a sockpuppet; I hate sockpuppets and maintain a clear position against them as one of the main vandal editors on this page used several sockpuppets and anon IPs to result in the locking of this article. Also, Take care in what you write because the second and third points of your last message contradict eachother as you have mixed up the terminology you previously wished to be used. Lastly, why exactly don't you consider the anti-Islamic POV warriors who have reverted the most under anon IPs? Why exactly are you pointing the finger at the few who reverted vandalism in the article? Perhaps you should look through the exact edits of the article history and see what certain anon-IPs wanted to do to the article.


 * Regardless, I think we should move on and stop discussing this issue to a greater extent. to adress your concern, if people can deal with these disputes in a civilized manner then perhaps the admins will unlock the article. Frankly I think that such an article easily biased due to the attention it receives and misconception that results. But regardless, article issues should be addressed. --Anonymous editor 01:47, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * We use indents to keep track of which post is in response to which other post, that way we know who is talking to who. I have added indents to your latest post to help show you how to use them.
 * "if people can deal with these disputes in a civilized manner then perhaps the admins will unlock the article"  I think we might as well wait and see how Yuber's ARBCOM hearing goes. If ARBCOM finds that Yuber is indeed a distruptive user, as many say he is, then perhaps ARBCOM will restrain Yubur and then productive editing of this article will become easier. --Zeno of Elea 02:52, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * "Yuber" might be restrained from editing, but I certainly won't ;).Yuber(talk) 03:09, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are There Really 2 Jihads?
The first two non-introductory sections of this article provide a lengthy explanation of how the Arabic word "Jihad" can actually mean two different things. Either it can mean "holy war" (primary meaning) or it can mean PRETTY MUCH ANYTHING BUT holy war (secondary meaning). The way that this issue is currently represented in the Wikipedia article represent a very biased POV. The whole basis for this idea that "Jihad" means two diametrically opposite thing (holy war and pretty much anything but holy war) is a certain hadith which speaks of a "Greater Jihad" and a "Lesser Jihad." Here is the exact hadith:


 * Upon his return from battle Muhammad said, "We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad (i.e. the struggle against the evil of one's soul)." [Tarikh al Baghadadi 13/493]

The fact of the matter is that Muslims are quite divided over the authenticity of this hadith, and only those who reject the classical scholarship of the original hadith collectors reject the belief that this is a hadith of weak isnad, meaning that the people who first wrote down this hadith also wrote down that they felt that it probably originated with a liar - a fabricator of hadiths. The isnad of this particular hadith about a "greater Jihad" and a "lesser Jihad" is considered weak for the following reasons :


 * Because it contains a narrator by the name of Khalaf bin Muhammad bin Ismail al Khiyam, about who Al-Hakim wrote: "His Hadiths are unreliable," and about whom Abu Ya'la al Khalili wrote, "He often adulterates, is very weak and narrates unknown Hadith." [Mashariul 'Ashwaq ila Masuril 'Ushshaq 1/31]
 * Al-Hakim and Ibnu Abi Zur'ah state: "We often write statements from Khalaf bin Muhammad bin Ismail only as an example, and we remove ourselves of responsibility from him." [Mizanul I'tidal 1/662]
 * And even more doubtful than that, there is within the Sanad of this Hadith a narrator by the name of Yahya bin Al Ula Al Bajili who according to Imam Ahmad is a known Kadhdhaab -liar-, and forger of Hadith. Also, Amru bin Ali, An Nasai and Daruqutni state: "His Hadith are renounced." Ibnu Adi states: "His Hadith are false." [Refer: Tahdhibut Tahdhib 11/261-262]
 * Ibnu Taimiyyah states: "There is a Hadith related by a group of people which states that the Prophet (s.a.w) said after the battle of Tabuk: 'We have returned from Jihad Asghar to Jihad Akbar'. This hadith has no source, nobody whomsoever in the field of Islamic Knowledge has narrated it. Jihad against the disbelievers is the most noble of actions, and moreover it is the most important action for the sake of mankind." [Refer: Al Furqan baina Auliyair Rahman wa Auliyaisy Shaitaan, matter 44-45].

Therefore mainstream Muslims view about this hadith is that it is probably a fake, a hoax, an forged hadith with a weak isnad involving known corrupt adulterers and forgerers of hadiths. These facts are not mentioned in the article at all. The only mention of the fact that most Muslims wouldn't believe this hadith is that admission that it is "weak" (in quotes) without any explanation of why it is "weak" and what that actually means.

The article currently contains even more outrageous statements, such as:


 * "Today, the word jihad is used in many circles as though it had an exclusively military dimension. Yet even though this is the most common popular understanding of jihad, it is worth noting that the word is not used in this narrow sense in the Qur'an, the holy text of Islam."

That is technically true, but one important fact has been ommited, and that is that he word "Jihad" is not used in the Qur'an at all - neither in a narrow sense nor in an extremely vauge sense! In other word the Qur'an does help us answer the question "What is Jihad?" because it does not mention the word "Jihad."

So, let's take a comprehensive overview of "What is Jihad?" as we know it thus far:


 * Qur'an: does not use the word "Jihad"


 * "Jihad has all spiritual, mental and physical meanings." -- Anonymous editor


 * hadith with WEAK isnad (keeping in mind that mainstream Muslims are not likely to assert belief in a hadith with weak isnad):
 * Upon his return from battle Muhammad said, "We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad (i.e. the struggle against the evil of one's soul)." [Tarikh al Baghadadi 13/493]

It's not looking good so far. Where can we find an authentic source to tell us what Jihad means, one that will not be looked upon skeptically by Muslims who don't believe in "weak hadiths"? Maybe we should also look at some hadiths with strong isnads to see if they can help us answer our simple question, What is Jihad?" ...
 * A man asked [the Prophet]: "...and what is Jihad?" He [peace be upon him] replied: "You fight against the disbelievers when you meet them (on the battlefield)." He asked again: "What kind of Jihad is the highest?" He [peace be upon him] 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].

We now have two contradictory explanations of what "Jihad" means. Hadiths with strong isnads say that it means "holy war," hadiths with weak isnads refer to vauge concepts of some sort of "spiritual jihad." Other hadiths demonstrate that "Jihad" is not only holy war but that the act of holy war ("Jihad") is considered in Islam to be a unique kind of deed to which no other deed is equivalent, be it a "spiritual jihad" or a "greater jihad."

Here here is on such hadith:


 * Narrated Abu Hurairah, The Prophet (s.a.w) was asked: "O Prophet of Allah! What deed could be an equivalent of Jihad Fi Sabilillaah [holy war in the cause of Allah]?" He answered: "You do not have the strength to do that deed." The narrator said: They repeated the question twice or thrice. Every time he answered: "You do not have the strength to do it." When the question was asked for the third time, he said: "One who goes out for Jihad is like a person who keeps fasts, stands in prayer (constantly), (obeying) Allah's (behests contained in) the Aayah (of the Qur'an), and does not exhibit any lassitude in fasting and praying until the Mujahid returns from Jihad Fi Sabilillaah." [Muslim, Hadith No. 4636]

The implication of this hadith is that the deed equivalent to Jihad (holy war) is to pray constantly, and to fast constantly, someting that this is humanly impossible. Another hadith confirms this view:


 * Narrated Abu hurairah, A man came to Allah's Messenger and said, "Guide me to such a deed as equals Jihad [holy war] (in reward)." He replied, "I do not find such a deed." Then he added, "Can you, while the Mujahid [holy warrior] has gone for Jihad, enter your mosque to perform Salat [prayer] without cease and observe Saum [fast] without breaking it?" The man said, "But who can do that?" [Bukhari. Volume 4, Hadith 44]

This confirms the view that the deed equivalent to Jihad (holy war) is to pray constantly, and to fast constantly, someting that this is humanly impossible. This proves that in mainstream Islam, in the classical and traditional Islam, Jihad was believed to mean holy war, and that to be a holy warrior was thought to be a deed unlike any other, be it the deed of "greater jihad" or "spiritual jihad" or "general struggle." Only hadiths with weak isnads support a contrary view which consists of relegating holy war to being a "lesser Jihad" and emphasizing some vauge notions of a "spiritual" "struggle" as being a "greater Jihad." It is precisely this view that has been endorsed without skepticism by the current article. Meanwhile, the traditonal view of "what is Jihad" which I have highlted above through the use if hadiths with strong isnads has been completely ommited from the article.

I think a solution to this problem must be found. First of all, the first two sections of the article are titled "As a general rule" and "As a general struggle." I fail to see the need for these two section. They can certainly be consolidated into one section that deals with any meaning of the word "Jihad" that deviates in any sense from the meaning of "Holy War."

Secondly, we must find a way to deal with the fact that the dominant Muslim opinions do not accept the idea (based on a weak hadith0 that there is a "greater Jihad" and a "lesser Jihad" because there is a great wealth of hadiths with strong isnads which make very clearly that "Jihad" means "holy war" and that being a holy warrior for Islam is the greatest deed, and that no deed could possibly equal the deed of being a holy warrior for Islam. Any claims that are based on hadiths with weak isnads and that contradict the meaning of "Jihad" as conveyed by authentic hadiths, must accompany a detailed explanation of the opposing view.

My proposition to this second matter is as follows. I think there should be a seperate Wikipedia article about the idea of a "greater Jihad." This whole concept of a "greater Jihad" as some sort "spiritual Jihad" against the "forces of evil" is rather mysterious and is based on questionable sources. It would take a whole article to just defining exactly WHAT the "greater Jihad" is (it's really a concept that was adopted by certain groups of Sufis and some of them did write about this "spiritual holy war"). It would also take a whole article to explain, in a fair and balanced way, the whole controversy surrounding the "weak hadiths" and contradictory "strong hadith" relating this question of "lesser" and "greater" Jihad. This article could then link to the article explaining the issue and controversy surrounding the extended definition of Jihad involving some mystical concepts of "greater Jihad." Basically, it is very difficult to write an article about both the "lesser Jihad" and the "greater Jihad", and the authenticity and widespread acceptance of such a dichotomy is itself a matter of controversy and division amongst Muslims, so we should have one article about "lesser Jihad" (i.e. the regular meaning of Jihad as "holy war") and a seperate article about the alleged "greater Jihad."

--Zeno of Elea 04:26, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * What is the purpose of splitting this article up? Let me guess, you want to use one article and insert POV rambling nonsense about 9-11 and every terrorist act committed by a person claiming to be a Muslim.Yuber(talk) 04:38, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * "What is the purpose of splitting this article up?" There are two reasons. 1. The concept of "greater jihad" is so vauge and difficult to define that it's currently taking up the first two sections of the article and are named (strangely) "As a General Rule" and "As a General Struggle." It seems to me that, whatever "greater Jihad" may be, it's a complicated mystical idea (mostly endorsed by sufis) that requires its own article to explained. It's hard enough to handle an article about "lesser Jihad" let alone an article about the "lesser" and "greater" Jihads. 2.There are a lot of opposing views and controversies that must accompany any discussion of "holy war" being the "lesser Jihad" and there being a mystical "greater Jihad." In the interest of NPOV, opposing views must be adequetly represented when citing the controversial and disputed views of a minority. This makes it even MORE difficult to handle an article that covers both the "lesser" and "greater" Jihads, and makes the idea, of splitting the article, an appealing one.
 * "Let me guess, you want to use one article and insert POV rambling nonsense about 9-11 and every terrorist act committed by a person claiming to be a Muslim." No, such content does not belong in this article. There should be a seperate article about 9/11, and a seperate article about and timeline of every terrorist act committed in the name of Islam.
 * --Zeno of Elea 05:00, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Zeno, the reason it's in two sections is because that is how Muslims typically write about it and it is interpretted. Since there is that whole "no original research" thing we cannot just start intepretting hadith... gren 05:18, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * "that is how Muslims typically write about it and it is interpretted." I'm very skeptical of your claim. The section titled "As a general rule" claims that Jihad can mean non-violence. It is not my experience that Muslims typically write about Jihad as involving non-violence. Please cite sources of evidence for this claim. I point out to you that both the article sections "As a general rule" and "As a general struggle" fail to document a single source of evidence and are overflowing with weasel words like "some Muslims ...".  Please cite your claims with evidence. -- Zeno of Elea 05:24, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Zeno, you need to learn more about this topic . Btw, most of those "weasel words" are there because POV pushing writers who love the so-called violent definition wouldn't stop generalizing between all muslims. Secondly, we do not need the timeline because there is already one linked in Islamist terrorism. Perhaps we should have a separate article about violence/terrorism committed with every religion's name? I think you have a great misperception of what Jihad truly is and you should realize that those Muslim writers who you are skeptical about are more likely to know what Jihad is as they are of the Islamic faith. Since the general Muslim definition of "Jihad" is the one that you are disagreeing with, there is no point that you are making, because clearly this article is about Jihad and clearly Jihad is in Islam. Skeptical POVs should be added separately (I know there are plenty of them). So please realize that and btw, I do support rephrasing the two so-called "outrageous" statements although, I should point out that the first statement is generally true as you have pointed out throughout your statements. The second is contradictory of the first and I think we need to do some research on this topic. Also we do NOT need two articles. Once the disputes are resolved and this one is unlocked then there can be a distinction made between "lesser" and "greater". Thanks. --Anonymous editor 16:36, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

There are no 2 types of jihad, there is only one Jihad. The problem is that in the western media, it has been made synonymous with terrorism or armed struggle.

If U search Quran, the word used for armed struggle is Qital ( Root word q-t-l , spoken qatala ) , & not jihad. JIhad is used mostly in the meaning of struggle, usually with h-j-r- meaning migration. So there is no lack of evidence, just lack of search. The evidence is right there in the Quran.

The site & claim that zeno is using is Salfi, not mainstream. Mainstream Islam is Sunni Islam comprising 70-80% of muslims. For sunni views of that matter see. And Sufism isnt some small group of people. It is a very important part of both Sunni & Shia Islam that has got a huge following among muslims all over the world.

JIhad has originated from the root word j-h-d ( spoken jahada ), meining struggle of any/every kind. The meaning ranges from struggling against evil indide heart & mind to struggle against enemy in the battle field. JIhad has got various levels, it starts with Jihad bil Qalb ( Struggle with heart ) , Jihad bil lisan (Struggle with tongue) , Jihad bil Ilm/Qalam ( Struggle with knowledge/pen ) , Jihad bil maal ( Struggle with money ) & in the end ...Jihad bis Saif ( Struggle with Sword ) , also called Qital. This is what is believed by Sunni muslims, nothing "vague" , "difficult" , or "mystical" about it.

Another thing ..... when something goes out of the Islamic definition of Jihad, it doesnt remain Jihad , no matter what people say about it. So if Quran/Sunnah says Jihad doesnt include killing unarmed people, it means the war in which unarmed innocent people are killed isnt Jihad.

So there is no need of dividing the article into two pieces. After the intro, "levels of Jihad" heading should be given , having an intro of greater/lesser jihad stuff, with sub headings of JIhad bil Qalb to Jihad bis Saif/Qital. In this last heading we will discuss defensive & offensive Jihad. Third heading should be about History of Jihad, & fourth about the "Misconceptions about Jihad"/Jihad in western media .......or well....Jihad in Popculture.

I will post more stuff hopefully by the end of next week. Farhansher 17:30, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * are you even paying attention? This is not about "western media", it is about a hadith talking about a "lesser" and a "greater" jihad. ffs, nobody here (I hope) is saying jihad means killing unarmed civilians, but that doesn't change the reality of armed struggle (viz., both sides armed) being referred to as "lesser jihad". If we just etymologize down to the root, sure, it's just Arabic for making an effort. This is not an arabic course, however, and we're obviously talking about the religious meaning of the word. And no, Zeno is not talking about 9/11 terrorists. This is about 8th century warfare expanding Islamic rule. I do not agree with Zeno that the article should be split up, but you seem so frightened that somebody might link Islam with terrorism that you're unamenable to reasonable discussion. First you say "there is only one Jihad", then you say "tere are several levels of Jihad". There is nothing "simple" about it, it's a complicated theological and exegetical question, as Zeno has realized, and as should be expected from a religion as widespread as Islam. Also, you cannot blame the "western media" for the abuse of Islamic terminology by extremists, if you want to pick on somebody, pick on those. Regarding jihad al-nafs, I don't think anyone disputes your source, obviously extremists groups will claim that they do both jihads. dab (&#5839;) 18:45, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Farhansher, you wrote, "The problem is that in the western media, it has been made synonymous with terrorism or armed struggle ." Firstly, as it has been pointed out numerous time, we are NOT talking about the "Western media." We are concerned with the content of Wikipedia media, not the content of "Western media." Secondly, it is not only the "Western media" that has made "Jihad" synonymous with "Holy War." AS I have demonstrated above, by quoting "authentic" hadiths from the collections such as Bukhari and Muslim, the traditional Islamic literature ALSO has made "Jihad" synonymous with "Holy War."
 * "If U search Quran, the word used for armed struggle is Qital ... The evidence is right there in the Quran ." This is a clear fallacy. Just because the word "Jihad" does not occur in the Qur'an does not mean that "Jihad" does not refer specifically to "Holy War." Islam is more than just the Qur'an. The traditional sources make it clear that "Jihad" can be synonymous with "Holy War." When Muslims refer to holy war they usually say "Jihad," as opposed to "qital." The fact that the Qur'an does not use the word "Jihad" does not tell us ANYTHING about what the word "Jihad" means; since the Qur'an does not use the word "Jihad," the Qur'an is simply of no use to us in determining the meaning of the word "Jihad."
 * "The site & claim that zeno is using is Salfi, not mainstream ." My claims were supported by hadiths, mostly from Bukhari and Muslim. How is that a "Salafi" source? The website that you linked to ALSO uses hadiths from Bukhari and Muslim. "Authentic" hadiths from classical Sunni sources such Bukhari and Muslim make it clear that (1) "Jihad" can be used synonymously with "Holy War" and (2) "Jihad" (in the sense of Holy War) is distinct from any other deed, and is in fact called the greatest deed. Since these hadiths come from the exact same sources that you are using to argue, you cannot possibly dismiss my evidence as "Salafi."
 * "For sunni views of that matter see." First, we must recognize that Sunnis themselves are divided over all sorts of issues, they do not all believe the same thing. In fact, the Salafis also consider themselves to be Sunnis. Having said that, the source you have linked to is quite interesting. What we have here are "authentic" hadiths, from Bukhari and Muslim, contradicting eachother. So, while your sources in support of the concept of "Jihad al-Nafs" appear to be valid, this does not invalidate the sources in support of the concept of "Jihad" as being "Holy War" and also being the greatest of deeds. The only way I see to do deal with this is to provide BOTH opposing views in the article. The one-sided account that we find in the current version of the article is not NPOV.
 * "there is no need of dividing the article into two pieces . After the intro, "levels of Jihad" heading should be given , having an intro of greater/lesser jihad stuff" Very well then, we should have an introductory section, sorting out the greater/less Jihad stuff, along with an explanation of the opposing views found in the authentic sources.
 * --Zeno of Elea 22:55, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is a whole section here on talk page saying Jihad bin nafs is unauthentic ..right??That greater jihad should be dicsussed in another article ..right?? that there are 2 jihads...right ?? the whole section was locked because people said jihad means killing unarmed civilians..right?? NOw about what I said ...Jihad starts from Jihad bin nafs & ends at Jihad bis saif. So whats so difficult about that. And yes, both sides are responsible for the misconceptions about jihad , I never said only western media is responsible. But the same jihad was hapenning from 1978 to 1988 in Afghanistan, where was this linking of Jihad & terrorism back then .....so inthe end ..western media plays a big part...though not solely rresponsible for the misconceptions.

And plz refrain from answering all people in one paragraph .Farhansher 19:31, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * "NOw about what I said ...Jihad starts from Jihad bin nafs & ends at Jihad bis saif" I think this is the most reasonable view, and it was even endorsed by Ibn Taymiyya. Basically we have this idea of of "Jihad bin nafs" (spiritual Jihad / "greater" Jihad) that is cloaked in a militant connotation by use of the word "Jihad." And then we have the idea of "Jihad bis saif" (Jihad of the sword / "lesser" Jihad) which is obviously referring to holy war. Many Muslims (including classical scholars like Ibn Taymiyya, and our own wikipedia user Farhansher) interpreted this as meaning that first a man must win the "spiritual Jihad" and then a man must go off on the holy war Jihad. This neatly reconsiles the less/greater Jihad dispute. --Zeno of Elea 22:55, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)-

I think we must all agree on a few fundamental facts:
 * 1. The word "Jihad" has meant "Holy War," since earliest recorded times in Islamic history
 * 2. The word "Jihad" has also had a metaphorical religious meaning, since earliest recorded times in Islamic history. Just as, in the English language, the word "war" can be metaphorically used to describe pretty much any struggle, so too can the word "Jihad." But more specifically, the Muslims metaphorically used the word "Jihad" in the religious context of the struggle towards piousness.
 * 3. Some of the authentic hadiths say that Jihad (holy war) is (1) completely seperate from any other deed, and (2) above any other deed in greatness.
 * 4. Some of the authentic hadiths say that there are some deeds that are equivalent to Jihad (holy war) in greatness, and these deeds come under the category of "Jihad al-nafs"
 * 5. Since 3. and 4. are contradictory, it is a matter of personal interpretation.
 * 6. Some inauthenthic hadiths say that there are some deeds that are superior to Jihad (holy war) in greatness, and these deeds come under the category of "Greater Jihad." The idea that Jihad (holy war) is the "lesser" Jihad and that "Jihad al-nafs" is the "greater" Jihad is widely disputed as a fabrication in virtually all sects (with the exception of some Sufi sects), due to the weakness of the related hadith.

These are the basic issues that must be dealt with, in a fair and balanced way using supporting evidence, in a section about this whole issue. If anyone disagrees with any of the above 6 points, then please say why.

There is also the issue of what section title(s) this issue should come under. I do not think that "As a general rule" and "As a general purpose" are adequate titles. I don't see the point of the "As a general rule" section. It has no supporting evidence, and contains some very bizarre claims (such as the idea that the story of Abel is proof that Islam supports Gandhi style non-violence). I think these two sections should be combined into one section. Farhansher has suggested calling the section "Levels of Jihad." I would prefer a title that is more descriptive and to the point, such as "Different Meanings of Jihad." I also disagree with Farhansher that the issue of "Defensive vs Offensive Jihad" belongs in the same section as the lesser/greater Jihad issue. The "Defensive vs Offensive Jihad" issue is currently a subsection of the "Warfare in Islam" section, which I think is perfectly appropriate. --Zeno of Elea 22:55, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * now that sounds very reasonable. It's nice to have a few cool heads around here. jihad bi-n-nafs to me seems very analogous to the Christian Church Militant and Salvation Army &mdash; both terms use military terms metaphorically, with either spiritual, or practical but non-violent, meanings. That doesn't change the fact that militant and army still have a meaning that is, well, military, and that the Church Militant did sanction military campaigns. And just because bishops did sprinkle rifles in the past doesn't mean that all Christians are foaming madmen off to bomb Islamic cities into oblivion. (You get my meaning, I am saying this is precisely analogous to the situation of jihad) dab (&#5839;) 11:29, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * re "crusade", the broader applicability of the term is secondary, c.f. Crusade. I am not sure, but I can imagine that crociata could actually translate the Arabic term, as-salibiyya / harb as-salib I believe. The article doesn't say so, and I don't know if it's true. dab (&#5839;) 11:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FOUR jihads
According to Encarta:
 * "Jihad is the duty of all mainstream Muslims, who belong to the branch known as Sunni Islam. There are four ways they may fulfill a jihad: by the heart, by the tongue, by the hand, and by the sword. The first refers to the inner, spiritual battle of the heart against vice, passion, and ignorance. The second way means speaking the truth and spreading the word of Islam with one's tongue. The third way involves choosing to do what is right and to combat injustice and what is wrong with action, or one's hand. The fourth way refers to defending Islam and waging war against its enemies with the sword."

Which is lesser & which is greater is a religious interpretation. Which is the original & which is the more common usage might be a job for sociolinguists - and there could be an answer

As I understand it, the word is extremeely similar to "crusade" -- a word which out of sensitivity is passing out of usage except to refer to the Crusades - can the same be said for jihad?--JimWae 23:04, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)


 * "speaking the truth and spreading the word of Islam with one's tongue."  There's already a word for this. In English it is called prostylizing and in Islamic terminology it is called "Da'wah." I don't see the point of further confusing the matter with this. When Muslims talk about da'wah, they say "da'wah" - they don't say "Jihad." I think it would be better to describe this secondary meaning of Jihad as "spiritual Jihad" or "inner Jihad" and basically leave it at that. With such a general concept, we could list dozens of things that might conceivably fit into "spiritual Jihad." We already have this example, from Encarta, of da'wah being "Jihad." The current version of the article also claims that scholarly study of Islam is also part of the "spiritual Jihad." If we start listing everything like this, then there is no end to it, because this whole idea of a "spiritual Jihad" is clearly so general that it encompasses the whole religion of Islam and then some. So far this means that we have 5 Jihads (1. Jihad "by heart", 2. Jihad by "tounge" (da'wah / prostylizing), 3. Jihad "by hand" 4. Jihad "by sword" (one has to wonder what the difference between 3 and 4 is) and now 5. Jihad by scholarly study of Islam!  If we delve into the hadiths, we can find at least 2 or 3 more types of "Jihad" (e.g. taking care of one's parents). So following this line of logic, there are at least 7 or 8 Jihads!. This is clearly absurd. I think the two definitions of Jihad as "Holy War" and as a "spiritual," metaphorical Jihad are suffucient. The primary focus of this article should be on the "Holy War" aspect of Jihad, because (as it has been demonstrated here) the concept of a "spiritual Jihad" is entirely vauge and general and encompasses a countless number of things which cannot possibly be enumerated here (and in fact it would be utterly pointless to enumerate them here).


 * You are absolutely correct that, in Islamic terminology, the word "Jihad" is used in a metaphorical way, just as how the word "Crusade" is used in a metaphorical way in English. Now I ask you, if you were writing an article about the Crusades, would you dedicate anything more than a paragraph to describe the fact that "Crusade" can metaphorically refer to all manner of things not dealing with the Crusades? Wouldn't the main focus of an article on "Crusade" be Holy War, and not a big list of all the possible metaphorical uses of the word "Crusade?"
 * --Zeno of Elea 03:05, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Which is lesser & which is greater is a religious interpretation." - Any source I've seen and any Muslim I've talked to about the topic says that lesser jihad is "holy war" and greater jihad is an internal struggle to keep and stay true to the faith. Do you have any citations to the contrary? --Tothebarricades 03:37, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * Tothebarricades, please read my post in the discussion section titled "Are There Really 2 Jihads?". The begining of this section explains were the specific concepts of "greater Jihad" and "lesser Jihad" originate, with a detailed examination of the originating sources. My post goes on to give many citations which negate the notion that "holy war" is "lesser" in some sense, in mainstream/traditional Islamic doctrine. --Zeno of Elea 10:50, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * If it's not in the Koran, it is interpretation, even if universally agreed -unless it has become a dogma of faith, which I do not think there is any process for in Islam, is there? Is it in the Koran or any other official scripture? If so, I stand corrected. My point is that a lot of energy seems to have been spent on which is inner & which is outer - and a better tack might be to discuss original use & preponderance of use --JimWae 03:41, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)


 * "If it's not in the Koran, it is interpretation ..." I don't understand what you are trying to say. The Koran must also be interpreted, just like any other religious text.
 * "a better tack might be to discuss original use & preponderance of use" That is an excellent idea. It's also why I've spent a great deal of time locating and describing authentic hadiths which use the word "Jihad" and explain what the word "Jihad" means. The hadith are the best available source for determining how the word "Jihad" was used by the early Muslims, since the use of the word "Jihad" in the hadiths is the oldest recorded use of the world. The Qur'an would be a preferable source but the Qur'an does not use the word "Jihad," so it cannot be an example of original use of the word "Jihad." --Zeno of Elea 10:50, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * By the way, JimWae, perhaps there really are 4 Jihads. And, like I said, perhaps there are 7 or 8 or who knows how many Jihads. I stated above that I didn't like the idea of stuffing all these different Jihads into this one article (it would simply become unmangable, especially in midst of revert wars).  But I did propose that we split the article into two articles, to deal with all these different Jihads. The most important and natural way of classifying all the different Jihads is to seperate them into violent/political Jihads (i.e. holy war) and "non-violent Jihads" (e.g. "spiritual" "Jihad",  "Jihad" of the "heart", "Jihad" of the "tounge", "Jihad" of taking care of one's parents, "Jihad" of studying the Koran, etc., etc.) All of the 3, 6, 7, or however many non-violent Jihads there are, can go into a new article about the "non-violent Jihads." Meanwhile those of us who are interested in the violent/political Jihad can resume editing this article. Of course the main article would have to make adequate mention of the "spiritual Jihads" and link to the other article. But no one seems to like the idea of splitting into two articles, in which case I think we ought to stick with just 2 Jihads at most. --Zeno of Elea 11:19, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * re the splitting, there is no reason to object to creating specialized articles on specific "jihads", once this article becomes too lengthy. This Jihad article will still remain an overview article (summary style) of the range of meanings of the term. The splitoffs will be specialized articles, and won't help us with the task of keeping the main article balanced. dab (&#5839;) 11:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)