Talk:Jihad/Archive 9

Protected?
I just stumbled onto this page and the literal definition was given as "holy war". Is someone not watching this page? I would think, being the topic that is, it would have been instantly reverted back and not need some random (kid) like me to do it. Honestly, Im losing faith in wikipedia and what it stands for, you can do what you like with this comment, I just needed to vent a little frustration. 75.164.168.247 17:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It does not sound like a random kid it sounds like a radical islamist like Osma Bin Laden because hes been calling for a holy war.162.83.169.91 15:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that more people are willing to mess up the pages than there are people to protect them. Scorcher117 (talk) 02:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Moving forward
From the period October 19, 2001 till today, there have been 1456 edits made to this article. The edits to this article generally appear to be oscillatory, and inspecting the article history, the content that is present today is not significantly different than versions which were present, say, 3 weeks ago. This suggests to me that the talk page to date has not been as effective as it should be. The discussions to date do not seem to portray an adequate sentiment of convergence. If I understand correctly, the edit dispute seems to revolve around determining whether a particular set of ideas should be included or excluded in the article, how these ideas should be expressed, or even if these ideas should be expressed.

There is no doubt in my mind that there are a significant number of intelligent editors who have contributed to this page - all from a variety of perspectives. Given the right editing environment, there is no reason why this article cannot be an exemplary example of collaborative editing on Wikipedia - and in fact, I believe we can still achieve this goal if we all earnestly make an effort to synthesize ideas together from all perspectives and write an article with synergy.

For a number of reasons, I have taken a few bold steps here with the expectation that contributors to this article will make a sincere effort to improve the article from its current state. This article needs a significant fresh start, so let us proceed with the following mentality going forward:


 * The contributors to this article are all in a classroom. They signed up for a certain project called Wikipedia. There is an calm murmur in the room - the sunlight filters in perfectly from the side windows. Looking to the left, you smell the spring flowers. Everyone is wondering what the overhead projector at the front of the class is for...


 * Suddenly, a voice from a speaker announces that within 24 hours time, a certain article will be posted for editing. You are told that it needs to be improved to be best of your abilities, and collaboratively with everyone else in the classroom so that all the ideas expressed are NPOV.


 * And you think: "I know a thing or two about this topic. I think I can do that, and I think it would be enjoyable!"


 * One of them happened to preemptively obtain a copy of this article, and apparently, it was posted somewhere on the internet...you all go to this site, take a look, and think: Hmm...this is missing X, Y, Z. It needs to mention A, B, C. I think D, E, F should be rephrased as ...


 * In that moment, everything in the past was forgotten and forgiven.

I noticed in the edit history that people were unusually careful regarding 3RR. There were a few violations, but I think it is unnecessary to block for them - this would simply be a deferral of responsibility, and would not help the article. We can do better than that - moving forward, let's encourage a sentiment of editing where we do not need to keep track of reverts - one where thoughts are focussed on combining and synthesizing ideas, rather than removing them. This is desirable for everyone, hmm?

Granted, I will be monitoring the edits to this page, and should it degenerate back into a situation where collaboration is not particularly productive, I may opt to block accounts uniformly for short periods, and protect the page once again. However, let me express the feeling that I think the editors here are capable, mature, and responsible - and moving on, I thoroughly expect to use the administrative features associated with my account to a minimum. Please do not test the boundaries of this trust I am reciprocating here.

Now, I am taking a few hours Wikibreak, and when I come back, I would hope that some productive dialogue will have taken place here. The idea that I am suggesting, is that we move on from what has been discussed already, and try something entirely new. As far as I am aware of, this has not been done anywhere on Wikipedia - but it is something worth trying to do, if it would help improve this article. Of course, should this degenerate any further, we will have to proceed with other measures - but I sincerely trust that this would be unnecessary.

The page that is currently protected is not an endorsement of its correctness. Although I am aware that certain editors may prefer the current version, I also expect that they will stay around and help with the article.

One final request - if there is a need to express certain disputed ideas related to this article, may I respectfully suggest that we all actively modulate our use of intensifiers, and keep them to a minimum if possible? There are effective alternatives which can be used to avoid escalating contention on this page; the idea is that we should be able to make this a good editing experience for everyone.

So, with this post, I leave you all look outside those sunny windows and observer the green pastoral setting that is outside. Yes, even this article can be as peaceful as that - but only if we all try to work towards that. And we are doing that right now...

For a head start, I think it might be judicious to summarize the content that is in dispute - paragraph by paragraph if necessary, and whether there are certain approaches that can be adapted to help with the article. Are there ways to combine the disputed content togther, so that it is amicable to all? Certainly, the answer is an unequivocal "yes" - and I want to see that when I come back later.



--HC 17:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Reinstating discussions
I've archived the previous discussion in Archive 8 above. If discussions need to be reinstated, please choose judiciously the ones that you feel will be most beneficial for the article at this point in time. --HC 17:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Jihad as holy war
(It should be noted beforehand that I am not a "christian" or of any other religion. And no, I'm not amerikan either. I think all religio-fascists are as bad as each other, and deplore the fact that most murders of other humans on this planet are done to supposedly satisfy "gods" (rather, the religious fundamentalists' egos) - Yes, just because it's a lot of people e.g. terrorism or war, it's still murder.)

I would say that "holy war" is the main meaning people use whenever they use the term "Jihad", this sometimes even applies to a non-Islamic context.

In the terms of Islam, I think it's a false believe and a bit of POV that Jihad "misunderstood" and has "nothing to do with war" when fundamentalist Islamists use it an excuse to murder innocent people.

For example, those of us in London where religio-fascist Islamic extremists recently murdered more than 30 people and seriously injured, maimed or crippled about 700 others (fact) of all cultures and beliefs have now got a pretty damn good idea of what Jihad is all about:

An excuse for violence on "unbelievers" and the use of religious texts such as the Koran and Hadith to justify mass murder and genocide...

Recently the president of Iran said publically that he would like to "wipe Israel from the face of the Earth". This is at the same time as Iran pours billions into it's nuclear weapons program and fund schools dedicated to training children to become "martyrs" ("martyr training schools") by killing themselves as living bombs.

Iran is the most well-known country with an entirely Muslim, non-secular government and no freedom of religion, and is brutal in putting down those who dissent against their tyranny, their own citizens. Its Revolutionary Guard Corps and Ministry of Intelligence and National Security continue to be involved in the planning and the execution of terrorist acts and fund many terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda (who claimed direct responsiblity for the murders in London in a videotape aired on al Jazeera on the 1st September 2005).

That's the kind of future Islamofascists want, one where no one has the freedom of belief and "unbelievers" are "punished" or "destroyed" through torture or genocide...

As for Wikipedia, the reason the article changes so little is people like User:BrandonYusufToroPOV, User:Anonymous editor and the other members of the Islamic thought police (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam:The_Muslim_Guild) incessantly patrol Wikpedia pages to try to bully their Mutaween versions of articles and target individuals who make any dissenting view... --Chaosfeary 13:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe it would be wise to cite something from the Qur'an or Sunnah before making this statement in regards to jihad simply being a struggle against sin. History will tell us otherwise as well as the multitude of interpretations on fiqh that jihad political overtones as well. -User: ICXCNIKA

Well. It almost seems like the article self-contradicts. Isn't there a flag for that? Hopquick 08:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * And perhaps a NPOV sentence would be: "The term Jihad as used in English almost exclusively refers to Jihad insert term here which refers to holy war via use of force.Hopquick 08:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Alot of people consider the tomato to be a vegetable. It's in fact a fruit. In an encyclopedia entry, it should ONLY be described as a fruit, even if most of the people are misinformed regarding that fact. The entry should reflect what Jihad IS, not what fools (Amerikan or Wahabi) have been mislead into thinking it is. Keep the entry FACTUAL. The points regarding Ahmedinijad and the London bombers are valid to a point, but remember even they justify their violence with rhetoric alleging that the Americans or Brits or Israelis attacked them first. Of course, it's an absurd justification since they don't direct their violence to people attacking them, but instead target civillians, but a rationalization directed at making their millitant actions compatible with the definition of a just Jihad nonetheless. Amibidhrohi 02:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Wrong. A tomato is both a fruit and a vegetable. Check your facts before you preach. Owen&times; &#9742;  02:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

"Botanically speaking, the tomato you eat is a fruit. So is a watermelon, green pepper, eggplant, cucumber, and squash. A "fruit" is any fleshy material covering a seed or seeds.

In 1893, the United States Supreme Court ruled the tomato was a "vegetable" and therefore subject to import taxes. The suit was brought by a consortium of growers who wanted it declared a vegetable to protect U.S. crop development and prices. Fruits, at that time, were not subjected to import taxes and foreign countries could flood the market with lower priced produce. (A hundred years really hasn't changed anything.) "

You're probably from the breed of people who saw called the indigenous people of the New World "Indians"... Amibidhrohi 02:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * A vegetable is an edible part of a plant; every fruit normally eaten by humans is also a vegetable. I'm not sure what your comment about "Indians" is trying to imply; I wasn't around when that poorly-chosen word started being used to describe North American natives. Owen&times; &#9742;  02:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

"Jihad as warfare

''The United States Department of Justice defines Jihad as follows:

"jihad" is the Arabic word for "holy war." In this context, jihad refers to the use of violence, including paramilitary action against persons, property or governments deemed to be enemies of a fundamentalist version of Islam.[15] Violent jihad or Jihad include planning, preparing for, and engaging in, acts of physical violence, including murder, maiming, kidnapping, and hostage-taking.[16]''

The document cited doesn't imply anywhere that this definition is the DOJ's 'position' on the definition of Jihad. Jihad is a concept in Islam. The Department of Justice isn't an authority on the Islamic religion anyway. The whole section is incompletely and poorly written. This is an encyclopedia; the piece is written as if it's meant to be posted on some online discussion forum or chatroom. Amibidhrohi 05:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

"aditional Islamic doctrine divided the world into two parts: the Dar al-Islam (land of Islam), and the Dar al-Harb (land of war). The former were the Muslim territories, governed by Islam as a political movement, while the latter were the non-Muslim territories of the world. The concept of warfare in Islam is of two distinct types: defensive jihad, which is defense of the Dar al-Islam, and offensive jihad which is the military conquests of the Dar al-Harb by Islam as a political movement (hence the term, "land of war"). The Wikipedia articles on Combative jihad discuss Islamic legal aspects of these two concepts in detail, while the article on Islam as a political movement discusses the Islamic political ideology that jihad seeks to further."

What is the source of this information? Please clarify it... Amibidhrohi 17:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

'holy war' is not a translation of 'jihad'.??? What??? Jihad was always taken and translated as holy war until 9/11 came and everything had to be politically corrected by the Islamo-fascists.


 * Uh, actually, I speak arabic and Jihad comes from "Juhd" (I don't know if that's the english spelling) which means "effort" or "struggle". Not war, neccessarily.

No 'holy war' was never the translation of jihad. Even before 9/11 jihad was translated as struggle. If you dont speak arabic and dont understand its grammatical views, dont make big statements. There was always confusion of this topic among the muslim communities and this confusion was used by the orientalists to bring down Islam.


 * That's true, The 'Holy war' concept is not an Islamic concept at all, and Jihad doesn't refer to 'Holy war', it rather comes from the root J-H-D (juhd), which means effort or struggle. And on top of that, how can a war be holy ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.78.217.176 (talk) 03:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Is there a reason, that the one who started this topic writes "amerikan" rather than "american"? is that NPOV? My name is eric ferguson


 * Well he is obviously foriegn, I'm guessing German, or at least German speaking. In any case, I don't think that jihad should be listed as a "holy war" since jihad doesn't necessarily entail physical conflict(as evidenced by http://www.islamanswers.net/jihad/aspects.htm).  Just because Americans have a connotation of the word that is completely inaccurate doesn't mean that we should put it on here.--Helgers7 07:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

We ought to respect the difference between a dictionary and an encyclopaedia: "jihad" is used in English to mean "holy war" (and other things): but the literal translation (before you get on to metaphors and inferences) is "struggle". The latter ought to be the first mention in this encyclopaedia article. Deipnosophista 07:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Dishonesty and revert warring
The "Islamic thought police" are a permanent fixture on Wikipedia and they are rabidly supported by a small minority of editors who style themselves as "politically correct," "spiritual," "non-Muslim," "defenders of the Islamic faith" against "anti-Islamic bigots." It is NEVER the case that rationality, truth and neutrality prevail here. The only thing that prevails is the Islamofacism of the Wikipedia dawa party. I have met Muslims who were very honest about Islamic beliefs and did not try to lie to me in order to make Islam compatable with secular humanist ideals. I had a friend who was an American who converted to Islam and then went to Syria to study Islamic law and he was very knowledgable in Islam; despite our vast differences he was always truthful about Muslim beliefs, not like the hypocrtical Muslim PR campaign that is being run here on Wikipedia. It is a pity that Wikipedia only seems to attract "liberal Muslims" who are willing to lie and distort the truth in order to make Islam "look good" in the view of Wikipedia's very secular and discerning readership. Right now this lunatic Islamic PR campaign is trying to delete the US Department of Justice's definition of "Jihad" from the article (as well as the stylistic improvements that I made to the article) and (as usual) they have launched a relentless revert war to achieve those ends  This is nothing but censorship, there is no honest reason for why such information should be deleted from wikipedia. The Muslim editors here, and the minority of supporters that I mentioned (notably Zora, who is seems to be the only non-Muslim who is trying to delete the DOJ definition), have not yet understood that Wikipedia is about freedom of thought and information, it is not about delusionally protecting the image of Islam from anything that would reflect negatively on the religion in the mind of a non-Muslim. Not a single pro-Islam/anti-DOJ Wikipedia editor has explained WHY the DOJ defintition must be deleted or WHY my reorganization of the article into two coherent section should be deleted. What kind of subsection title is "General theological issues?" or "The Muslim View"? This is just nonsense. And it should be noted that I authored almost all of this article, and it was ME who came up with the title "General theological issues" in the first place. I am only trying to improve things that I myself wrote, and here we have certain individuals trying to revert absolutely any change I make to Wikipedia. I am firmly convinced that all of the problems on Wikipedia that I describe would instantly end if only 4 or 5 certain sockpuppeteering editors were banned. --- Zeno of Elea 19:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * As much as I want to agree or disagree with you, wiki pages cannot help but ebb and flow in its neutrality. For example, in the USA we have CNN, NPR, FOXNEWS, and MSNBC all reporting about the same world.  However the adherents to one network will always accuse the other networks of being more liberal, conservative, propagandaist, etc.  Fortunately the Wikipedia community is filled with a very diverse group of editors, some who are muslim, many who are not, who can by their sheer numbers pull the consensus back towards neutrality.  I disagree with the tone of your comment because there is no way to be neutral while still being faithful to the spirit your commentary. Hopquick 01:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

re: " The "Islamic thought police" are a permanent fixture on Wikipedia and they are rabidly supported by a small minority of editors who style themselves as "politically correct," "spiritual," "non-Muslim," "defenders of the Islamic faith" against "anti-Islamic bigots." It is NEVER the case that rationality, truth and neutrality prevail here. "

Exactly the same is true of Jewish and Christian interests on Wikipedia. Certain articles are watched like hawks by those with a interest in enforcing a particular viewpoint. Any dissent is deemed 'trolling' so specific editors can claim their point of view stands and 3reverts doesnt apply. Wikipedia is generally a good source of information but is to some degree tainted by those that want to enforce a particular point of view when it comes to relgion, politics etc.
 * I agree completely. Having an interest in Jewish History in many periods, I have come across the Jewish WikiPolice frequently. Some articles are basically owned by certain individuals, and you cannot even hope to make changes even in tone, let alone in content, regardless of your expertise. In general I disagree with you when you say that WP is a good source of information; most articles are filled with inaccuracies, because contributors in general are not experts, but merely knowledgable amateurs at best. 66.108.105.21 19:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

Typo
Hey, yeah, I found a typo in the article. I'd love to fix it myself like I generally do with other articles, but the article seems to be protected. I guess I'll just post it here and let a sysop take care of it seeing as I can't.

In the second paragraph is this clause:
 * [...] for example a Muslim struggling to memorize the Qur'an is a called a mujahid.

It should be
 * [...] for example a Muslim struggling to memorize the Qur'an is called a mujahid.

Oni Lukos ct 00:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It's been corrected now - see . --HC 06:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Just a bit longer...
I'm still waiting to see what the thoughts of BrandonYusufToropov and Anonymous editor are regarding the article - so, for now we'll protect the page a just tad bit longer. --HC 06:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see a point for unprotection yet. You have seen the type of arguments made by the people who want to insert the controversial POV material. There would have been no revert war if the major edits were discussed before by these users, namely user:Zeno of Elea. I think that the article should be protected longer until these additions have been sorted out. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 14:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. I want to say too, though, that it's bizarre that this article so frequently gets frozen in place in a version that includes the absurd passages relating to the US Department of Justice's insights on Islamic theology.
 * That having been said, I think we should all be able to discuss what the consensus is for major edits to a page of this visibility, and keeping the article protected seems the best way to do that. BrandonYusufToropov 21:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * BrandonYusufToropov, you are involved in deleting information, specifically the DOJ defintion, through this revert war. You are asking that the page be protected for a longer time so that we can discuss the content dispute, but you clearly refuse to discuss the content itself. All you have done so far is whined about the "wrong version" being protected in the past, and you have baselessly asserted that the mention of the US DOJ's description of Jihad is "absurd." Why is it absurd? Why are you deleting it? Do you have anything to say for yourself in the interest of intellectual honesty? -- Zeno of Elea 01:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Anonymous editor and BrandonYusufToropov have already been given a suffucient amount of time to try to justify their revert warring and respond to the criticisms of their reverts that have been made. -- Zeno of Elea 17:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * And Zeno has been given enough time to discuss why she would make such large amounts of POV edits without a word of discussion when she knew the edits would be controversial. Also she has had enough time to realize that her major POV edits and the reverts to her edits are the ones in question. But remembering Zeno, she hasn't learned the meaning of discussion and would support any revert war as long as anti-Islamic material was presented. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 18:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Anonymous editor, first of all you are well aware that I am a "he" not a "she" (as I have told you in the past); you may want to see the article Zeno of Elea as this the name of a famous peson who was a "he" and who any educated person ought to have read about through study of "Zeno's paradoxes." Furthermore, all you have provided here are personal attacks and baseless assertions that my edits are "POV" (without any explanation of why), and now you expect your censorship practices to be accepted without question. I would recommend that you worry less about making personal attacks against me and worry more about addressing the points I have made above regarding the current content dispute (which you are a part of through your revert warring). Furthermore, you keep asserting that I have made "major edits" to the article, but this clearly not true. In fact, YOU are the one who is making major edits by deleting a good 30% of the article without any intellectually respectable explanation. -- Zeno of Elea 01:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

So far, Anonymous editor and BrandonYusufToropov (the prime instigators of this revert war), have gone to great lengths to (a) make personal attacks against me, (b) openly admit that the currently protected version of the article is their preferred version, and (c) insist that the article remain protected in its present state so that a "discussion" can take place. But it is THESE very users who are engaging doing the reverts, and it is THEIR justifications that we have all patiently been waiting to hear. Instead of hearing any specific discussion about the specific content dispute (and my comments regarding it above), all we have heard is that they would prefer that the page remain protected in its current state so that we can "discuss what the consensus is." It seems to me that these people are only interested in keeping the page protected so that they can keep their unjustifiable apologetic censorhip going, and they are interested in neither discussion nor consesus. But to give Yusuf and Anonymous the benifet of the doubt I am again inviting them to respond to my explanation of my stylstic edits (see above) and I am again inviting them to explain why they have suddenly started deleting the DOJ defintion of Jihad from the article. -- Zeno of Elea 01:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that the prime instigator of the revert war would be the one who came along and started making unexplained, POV edits. No one has made personal attacks against you and nothing as direct, but it's common to hear your allegations and useless rants rather than any productive discussion. Btw, this is not my preferred version, a lot of what has been added in this version is the way you want it, not me. For my edits, can you please tell me where I deleted 30% of the article? I only reverted unexplained edits by you and haven't added/removed anything to the article that is different from its version previous to when you and your friends started this revert war. And as for your edits, I think some edits speak for themselves. Also the DOJ definition discussion is already discussed - see archived discussion. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 20:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I have explained all of my edits. You have not responded to my explanations. All you have done is engaged in personal attacks and you have thrown the word "POV" around without bothering to intellectually justify your claims. You deleted the DOJ definition, which constitutes about 30% of this small article. Your extreme POV beliefs are not a reason for us to delete the DOJ definition. There is no rational reason for deleting it, and it is here to stay. You had better find a way to compromise your beliefs, otherwise the next step is mediation. Also, the content of the article is not "the way I want it," it is what has been decided by consensus. -- Zeno of Elea 07:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You have explained nothing, you just keep repeating the same things over and over and keep alleging personal attacks. None of the stuff you added was with "consensus" unless you are referring to the opinions of just you and 2 editors who only reverted in this article. I even told you that there was a discussion on the DOJ issue which was archived, but once again you didn't read my message but repeated the same things over and over. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 20:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * "You have explained nothing, you just keep repeating the same things over and over" You can find above right on this page an explanation of my edits, as well as below, as well as in my edit summaries, all of which was posted before you asserted that I "have explained nothing." You also claim that I "keep repeating the same things over and over." How can it be that I have explained nothing and am also repeating things over and over? The fact is that you are wrong on all counts. You are simply a blatent liar. This very talk page is evidence that I have attempted to explain my edits to you several times and you have not responded a single time, other than to hurl false accusations and to try pathetically to decieve others.
 * "None of the stuff you added was with "consensus" unless you are referring to the opinions of just you and 2 editors who only reverted in this article" Here you go again, trying to decieve readers. Either that you are having a great deal of difficulty following conversations. As you clearly see on the screen in front of you, I was referring to the article as a whole and the long-term history of the article, in response to you bringing up this topic in the first place. I was not referring to the present dispute, yet you have tried to put words into my mouth, setting up a straw man claiming that I have said something about consensus on the present content dispute when I have not. -- Zeno of Elea 04:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Links
Let's start from the bottom of the article, and focus on one thing only: the external links and references. Take a look at this edit:. What is the dispute surrounding these links? It seems that the only difference is whether they should be characterized as "Sites critical of Jihad", or whether they are "Secular sites discussing Jihad", and whether they should be placed closer to the top or bottom. Is this correct? Does this mean that all the editors agree that they are worthy for inclusion on this page? HC 02:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The thing is, not all non-Muslim sites about Jihad are "critical" of it, and it's POV to imply this, a siege mentality really.. - It's like if the Encylopedia bit said "Encylopedias critical of Jihad". --Chaosfeary 11:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Jihad's use as a propaganda term by reputable mainstream commentators is probably an important dimension of its meaning, and an underdiscussed one in this article. Sites from such commentators -- as opposed to hate-speech free-for-alls like faithfreedom.org -- should probably appear. As far as I can tell, everything on this links list should be in, though I think the title of that section still needs work. BrandonYusufToropov 11:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * What this particular section is called and where it is placed is a minor issue. The question of where it is placed is easily solved by adopting an alphabetical listing policy. I would say that "Criticism of Jihad" under "External Links" is more appropriate, and a link to Criticism of Islam would be relevant. The links section is really not the issue here and it has nothing to do with the revert war that led you to protect the page, as the diff you provide indicates. -- Zeno of Elea


 * Really? I must have misunderstood them then. In some reversions, the location and the title of the links seems to change along with a specific paragraph of text. I must ask, does "DOJ" mean "US Department of Justice" on this page? Also, is there a reason why other national/international operating definitions of jihad are not mentioned in the article, in additional to the DOJ one? --HC 05:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes DOJ means US Department of Justice. The probable reason for why other national/international operating definitions of jihad are not mentioned in the article is because no editor has ever heard of such a thing. At any rate, no one has stopped anyone from adding national/international operating definitions of jihad besides the DOJ since no one has proposed anything of the sort. This does not justify deleting the information about the DOJ operating definition. -- Zeno of Elea 06:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry. You're saying that no editor has ever heard of any other government body referring to "jihad" or defining it? BrandonYusufToropov 11:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * There is also archived discussion on this HC. . As I mentioned before, I really see no reason why one country should have any authority in defining part of a religion. Would you hear the US "DOJ" define christian terms like trinity? No you wouldn't. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 20:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Or, perhaps more to the point, the opinions of Saudi Arabia's royal family on the topic of the Trinity. Perhaps someone who's heavily invested in this particular content could do some of the necessary research and then try to insert that Saudi material in Trinity so we can all see exactly what happens. Based on those results, we can discuss what should happen here. BrandonYusufToropov 22:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

"You're saying that no editor has ever heard of any other government body referring to "jihad" or defining it? BrandonYusufToropov 11:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)" I do not know of any other government that has a legal definition of Jihad, and I doubt that there is such a thing. If you know of some other country's Justice Department giving a legal defintion of Jihad, then let us know. -- Zeno of Elea 06:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

"There is also archived discussion on this HC. [4]. As I mentioned before, I really see no reason why one country should have any authority in defining part of a religion. Would you hear the US "DOJ" define christian terms like trinity? No you wouldn't. --a.n.o.n.y.m  You don't see the reason for the Department of Justice to have a legal definition of the word Jihad? I am sure that the Department of Justice has its reasons, and given the violent and criminal nature of what they describe it is not hard to see why they have defined it. You may not agree with the definition, or you may think that there is no reason for the justice department to have a definition at all, but that does not change the fact there is a definition and that as an enyclopedia Wikipedia should mention this definition here. You are right that there is no rational reason for the Department of Justice to define the Trinity, but that is not relevant to this discussion. I can't see why any unbiased editor would accept your justification for deleting the DOJ definition from this article. -- Zeno of Elea 07:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Why are we supposed to be interested in the US Department of Justice's views on the definition of Jihad? Deipnosophista 07:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Make a to-do list?
Based on the discussion above, it seems that there are a lot of fronts on which this article can be improved. Maybe this talk page can make use of a "to-do" list - and this list can be placed at the top of the talk page. This to-do list will simply be a point form summary of the ideas generated here - it can be used as a scratchpad for ideas. How does this sound to the editors? HC 02:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Heartily agree. A lack of consensus about what, precisely needs to get worked on next is a big part of the problem here. BrandonYusufToropov 14:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * This has nothing to do with the page protection that you have enforced and which has been in place for quite a while now. You didn't protect the page so that we can make a to-do list in order improve the article. The page was protected because of a revert war, and the main point of contention is the DOJ legal definition of Jihad. -- Zeno of Elea 06:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * And your major edits too which were undiscussed. If the DOJ is the one dispute then we can add to that discussion which has been archived. I don't think that if the page was unprotected that much would change and the same conflict will continue. A to do list is a good way to resolve disputes. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 20:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Compromise and asymototic NPOV
Also, regarding the reversions related to the DOJ definition...How about this compromise? We insert the both the DOJ text, and the other text into two separate sections and place section NPOV tags on them? In this way, at least both sources of ideas will be present on the same page - it will make it easier to determine how to best merge the content together I think, if everything is on one page instead of two. How do all of you feel about this? If the presence or absence of a certain section of text is important enough to cause a sustained edit war, it seems reasonable to conclude that both sets of ideas deserve to be expressed in some form. Of course, the resulting text may not be immediately NPOV - but in this case, I think we can at least aim for what I call asymtotic NPOV - at least have all the ideas on one page, so that a variety of editors can come by and help rewrite the ideas into a totally NPOV form - giving the Wiki some time and patience to achive this. By reverting to different texts, the ideas are simply lost, and nothing can be built upon them. For this reason, I think the article has not progressed significantly for the past few weeks. Can we agree to adapt this approach for the next little while, or at least agree to try it out? Keep all the ideas, and instead of removing them, and strive to reword it so that it is palatable to everyone. HC 02:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * "Also, regarding the reversions related to the DOJ definition...How about this compromise? We insert the both the DOJ text, and the other text into two separate sections and place section NPOV tags on them? " Placing permanent NPOV tags is not a solution of any kind. Just because you think that the DOJ legal definition is "POV" does not mean that any article mentioning it should have NPOV tags. There is a difference between not adhering to NPOV and neutrally presenting a particular POV. Furthermore, what do you mean by "insert the both the DOJ text, and the other text into two separate sections?" What other text? What two seperate sections? And for what rational reason?
 * "...if everything is on one page instead of two..." Two pages? Which two pages? There is only one article, and I do not see how starting a second article is a reasonable option.
 * "If the presence or absence of a certain section of text is important enough to cause a sustained edit war, it seems reasonable to conclude that both sets of ideas deserve to be expressed in some form." I don't think so. One group is trying to delete text from a section, while the other group is trying to include it. The former group is trying to push their own POV by censoring the article, and the latter group is trying to neutrality present a legal definition from the US Department of Justice. We are not saying that Jihad is whatever the DOJ says it is, we are only describing what the DOJ legal definition is - whether or not you agree with the DOJ is up to you, and this is no place for a discussion of anti-American POVs.
 * "By reverting to different texts, the ideas are simply lost, and nothing can be built upon them." People who try to wage revert wars in an effort to censor articles for POV reasons that they cannot even be bothered to articulate should be asked to cease their hamrful activities.
 * "Keep all the ideas, and instead of removing them, and strive to reword it so that it is palatable to everyone." It is very simple, HC. Either the DOJ definition stays or it goes. Once we are agreed that the DOJ definition stays, we should revert to the version where it IS included. HOW it is included is a different matter entirely, and no one has raised any specific objections as to the currently manner in which it is included.
 * "strive to reword it so that it is palatable to everyone." We are quoting the DOJ definition. Rewording the DOJ's definition, so that it is palatable to Muslim apologetics or for any other reason, is not an option. Perhaps you are referring to rewording the article in general, in which case I again point out to you that the present dispute is only about whether or not the DOJ definition is included - the current manner in which it is presented has not been disputed by anyone.
 * HC, it seems to me that you support keeping the DOJ definition. This much I can agree with. Your idea about changing the way in which it is presented are vauge and without any justification - if you could explain specifically is wrong with the current version, then perhaps we can get somewhere. But keeping the DOJ definition while rewording the article, inserting NPOV tags, and creating incoherent subsections, just so that we can please a group of people whose only concern is to delete the DOJ definition, is neither rational nor is it fair. The DOJ definition was presented in a neutral manner, and two users began a revert war to delete the definition. You are alleging that the way in which the definition was presented is the problem, but no one has said raised objections about the way in which the definition was presented - the only objections raised are against any and all presentation of the definition. -- Zeno of Elea 07:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Word etymology
Also, I found this site here from Canada. The summary at minimum suggests that the meaning of the word "jihad" is contextual. It may be worthwhile to introduce explicitly a "word etymology" section into the top of the article so that the history of its usage, and its application is clearly outlined for the rest of the article. We can make it a goal of the article to convey to the reader that the concepts associated with "jihad" have carried different meanings under various contexts for different people over time. Once we have established that the purpose of the article is to convey these different perspectives, it should not be so difficult to present the reverted versions of the page in a manner which complements each other. How does this approach sound to everyone? HC 02:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * "Also, I found this site here from Canada " First of all, NC, this is the website of the Canadian Islamic Congress, which is not a reliable source. Secondly, the article goes into great depth about the different contextual uses of the word "Jihad." Please see the article content on the different kinds of Jihad, eg. Jihad by the hand, Jihad by the pen, Jihad of the heart, etc, etc. - this covers all of the issues raised by the link that you have provided.
 * "It may be worthwhile to introduce explicitly a "word etymology" section into the top of the article so that the history of its usage, and its application is clearly outlined for the rest of the article." Etymology is the study of the origin and history of words. Etymology is NOT the study of the present usage and "application" of words. The link that you gave does not say anything about the etymology of the word. If you have information on the Arabic etymology of the word "Jihad" then you are of course welcome to add it, but please realize that a word's defintion is not the same as its etymology. I would imagine that the Arabic word "jihad" has its origins in Aramaic or Hebrew or Proto-Semitic.
 * "Once we have established that the purpose of the article is to convey these different perspectives, it should not be so difficult to present the reverted versions of the page in a manner which complements each other." NC, which different perspectives are you talking about? You went from talking about context to talking about etymology and then you went to talking about "different perspectives" - these are three completely different issues. I realize that you are only trying to help and do so in an even handed way, but suggesting that we resolve this revert war but carrying out an unrelated etymological study is not appropriate. As for the different usages of the word Jihad, this is already covered by the article. I do not know which "different perspectives" you are talking about, nor do I know what you mean by "conveying" these "different perspectives." You are speaking in very general terms and you seem to lack famaliarity with the subject matter. I do not see how your flurry of ideas on how to expand the article is going to help us resolve the issue of whether or not the DOJ legal definition should be included in the article (which is the cause of this revert war). -- Zeno of Elea 07:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I like day dong.

Mainstream Muslims consider jihad to be misunderstood by non-Muslims
The article asserts: "Mainstream Muslims consider jihad to be the most misunderstood aspect of their religion by non-Muslims." No source is given here. This is just one specific Muslim Wikipedia editor's assertions about what "mainstream Muslims" think. Has a world-wide statistical survey been conducted on this issue? Or what? This sort wording is inappropriate for Wikipedia, and is suited for blogs and POV websites which try to convince the reader that non-Muslim perceptions of Jihad are wrong. These sorts of apologetic are impossible to source or verify and are designed to poison the well - they have no place here. When dealing with this very controversial subject, every single statement must be sourced and any statement that is not sourced is liable to be deleted (especially if it is an unsourced vauge statement about what the majority or "mainstream" adherents of a religion think). -- Zeno of Elea 07:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm from a Muslim family myself. I can confidently say that even Muslims are confused when it comes to defining Jihad. Many who are born into Western education and have little exposure to the deeper stuff of their own religion also buy into the notion that Jihad means warfare, and nothing else. Others suscribe to the more complex definition of Jihad described in the first few sections of this article (a more factually and historically accurate definition, in my opinion). There needs to be some way of conveying here that different sects hold different understandings of Jihad. Yes, the majority believe the greater Jihad is the jihad within one's own soul. Many fundementalists (even those not millitant)don't believe that at all, and see this belief as a stand of cowardice on the part of the more moderate majority. Amibidhrohi 18:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

After time and time again decent Muslims have tried to tell the white-western world that Jihad is a mean of "struggle" or the "holy struggle" between good and the DEVIL. For example you might be tempted to to bad deeds, but you fight against that urge and do good instead. The scholars mentioned in this text are not very well known. I believe that this article should have been written by a scholar but not a non-muslim westerner otherwise it is palpable that bias will occur. I find it amusing that Westerners think they know more about the Qu'ran (not Koran, we don't say bibel do we?) then we do. I believe it should be known that Jihad means "struggle" and that the Qu'ran was brought down on this earth not to be analysed, but to be read and understood. Taking the Qu'ran for what it is what the Muslims do, taking things too literally is what they do. I won't classify "them" as Muslims since they are not. I urge Westerner ignorance to stop as even though you look at their skin colour and jude them and listen to them calling themselves Muslims, they are not. To read Namaaz, yet to carry out deads as they have is Haraam, they will be punished for it. Be the wise person and stop believing a western white person over a Muslim. However there are some white people who understand this, and I exalt them.

I mean if you get cheap thrills calling us terrorist and suicide bombers, sure go ahead, whatever makes you look "cool" and "patriotic". But know this, I have never (and will never) blown a person up. -- Ignorance kills. Don't be part of it. Don't be sheep.

Clarification
Let me clarify a few things here in response to some of the posts made by Zeno. I really appreciate how quickly posts are made to this page. I do have other responsibilities outside of the Wiki, so my apologies in advance if I tend to reply with a bit of tardiness.

To be honest, I don't know what would be best to resolve the edit war. It seems to me that both sides are fairly entrenched regarding what to do with the DOJ definition, and I am fairly certain that if the page were unprotected, the reversions would happen once again. I hope that this will stop after my intervention here. Let's make it clear that if anyone feels that I am not helping the situation here, please feel free to let me know, and I'll move on to some other project on Wikipedia. I only decided to help out because I thought this article might benefit from having an administrator who is firmly neutral on the topic - after all, my background is in an entirely unrelated field, and I do not keep up with this topic in the media. Of course, it may not be what this article needs, but I felt a few days ago that there was at least a chance that it would be beneficial for the article if I tried to help out.

The to-do list was something I suggested because when I read through the archives, I felt that there were always the occasional ideas which came up, but were never acted upon because the focus was elsewhere. I just thought that it would be a good idea to keep track of these, but I suppose for the current situation, it would be somewhat of a distraction.

The suggestion to place NPOV tags arose from another page where there was an edit war. An NPOV tag was placed at the top of the page and protected. After a few days of discussions, all the regular editors then agreed to unlock the page, take the page off their watchlist, not edit the page at all for a fixed amount of time, and come back when anonymous editors and other users had made a reasonable number of edits to the article. This helped end the edit war and resulted in a more stable article - I thought this approach might work here as well.

I know that word etymology deals with the origin of and history of words, and I suggested this based on my experience with Chinese. Single words in Chinese can be associated with other words and concepts in subtle metaphorical ways, and in modern China, these associations are important and shape the politics of how certain concepts are presented. I thought that there might be a similar situation in Arabic after I read the first sentence on that site from the Canadian Islamic Congress. I did not read further into the that page or its merits - I just found it based on some Google searches for "jihad definition", "Canada", and other keywords - I picked Canada simply because it was the first country that I thought of after "United States" that day.

Yes, I freely admit that I know very little about this topic, so if I am asking questions which seem out of place or irrelevant, I hope you can forgive my ignorance. I have kept the questions somewhat generic for this reason. However, it seems that everyone is quite keen to address directly whether the DOJ definition should be kept or excised from the article, so I will try to stick to that topic from now on. I was hoping that my posts would encourage some thought regarding other things which might supercede the issue regarding the DOJ material, but based on your feedback, it seems that this approach would not be viable, so we'll try and talk about the DOJ material first.

The "two pages" I was referring to was this version here. The content on the yellow and green side seemed to be completely different, and I did not notice until now that it is looks like a reshuffing of content.The yellow side seems to have the extra paragraph: The United States Department of Justice defines.... Is that section the only source of dispute on the article right now?

I did not intend this post to be so long, but I thought it would be good to clarify my position regarding this article. In the future, I'll try to keep it more concise. Posts that are too long risk introducing too many unrelated things to the discussion table, so I'll refrain from writing so much in the future. I hope this has helped explain a few things. --HC 00:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * This will go nowhere until BrandonYusuf and Anonymous User begin to engage in honest and good faith discussions. That will not happen until they have a need to argue their position. As it is, the article is locked in the version that they want and so they are avoiding discussion. How long is this supposed to continue? Can you honestly say that you have heard a reasonable justification for deleting the DOJ information? In my opinion, BrandonYusuf and Anonymous User as well as others need mediation - someone who they are willing to listen and talk to must convince them that revert wars and censorship are not the way and that it is in their interest to use the talk page. -- Zeno of Elea 04:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

What next?
I'm going to unprotect the page and see what happens. There's at least some willingness to make a "to-do" list, which means there is a willingness for some discussion. If changes are made to the article, please keep them incremental. --HC 01:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * "If changes are made to the article, please keep them incremental." By saying this, you are in effect endorsing the version of the article that you protected. -- Zeno of Elea 04:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This is exactly what I would say had the other version been protected. I'm not endorsing anything, and I don't like the insinuation that I am. I don't think I can do anything else beyond what is already done, with the exception of filing a peer review. So after that, I think I'm moving on to some other project on Wikipedia. There were no more 3RR edits after the page was unprotected, so as far as I am concerned, the edit war is over. --HC 04:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * "This is exactly what I would say had the other version been protected. I'm not endorsing anything, and I don't like the insinuation that I am." A version of the article was protected and I'm not insinuating anything, I'm describing to you upfront what the consequences of your actions are. Just as in any edit war, there are two versions of the article - let's call them version A and version B and say that A is the version of the article which includes the DOJ definition and my reoriganization of the article into two sections (discussed above), and B is the version of the article which deletes the DOJ definition and reverts my reorganization. You protected version B of the article (this is not to say that you endorsed version B by protecting it). Then after a while you unprotected version B article, and simultaniously wrote here that changes to the current article (version B) be kept incremental. Why must the change from B to A be incremental, and not the change from A to B? Just because you happened to protected and unprotect version B of the article as opposed to version A? After you unprotected version B and made these declerations, the article was reverted to version A (meaning that the DOJ definition and the reorganization (both of which were discussed above, without response from the opposing side) were restored. Shortly thereafter, User:Yuber reverted back to version B  and wrote in his edit summary, "RV non-incremental edit" and now he is spear-leading this revert war supposedly in the name of "incrementalism." Where did he get this idea that any changes of the article from version B be kept incremental, but that changes from version A of the article not be kept incremental? Your suggestion that changes to version B be kept incremental is now the latest justification for deleting the DOJ definition of Jihad without any discussion or justification by users who are known POV warriors on year-long probabations. The emperical evidence is that your latest comments / actions have resulted in official endorsement of content. -- Zeno of Elea 10:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Some Reader Comments
I apologize if I'm not doing the peer review right. As a reader without any special expertise in these thoughts, it seems to me that this article suffers from a frequent Wikipedia problem - a casual reader can see that there is some kind of debate under the surface of the article, but the article is arranged in such a way as to make it hard to understand the arguments of each side or their evidence. As an example of this, it takes three or four readings of the "Greater or Lesser Jihad" section for a new reader to figure out what the disagreement is and what statements are meant to support one side or the other. 1. As far as I can tell from the article, everyone agrees that, today, some people use "jihad" to mean primarily or even exclusively war against the unbelievers (which may then be divided into defensive war and offensive war), and some people use jihad to include non-violent struggles. In this sense, jihad is similar to the Western use of "crusade," although its origin may be different. 2. One side to the debate seems to argue that, more or less: (i) jihad meant both violent and non-violent efforts as early as the birth of Islam, (ii) personal non-violent jihad should be understood by true muslims as being superior to holy war, (iii) jihad should not be understood to mean primarily holy war today, and (iv) moreover, in many cases where jihad does mean holy war, it really means a defensive holy war. 3. The other side seems to argue, more or less: (i) the primary understanding of the meaning of jihad, both today and historically, is holy war; (ii) the use of jihad to mean personal struggle is primarily a sufi tradition that has been seized upon by jihad apologists, but does not have a historical basis outside the sufi tradition. If I understand the debate correctly, as a reader, I would prefer to have the debate spelled out (presumably in its own section), and then have the evidence pro and con each side arranged in a clear way, with citations to support. OHOH, if I misunderstand the debate, then I'm not sure why there's so much struggle on both sides.

A separate page of "historical uses of the word 'jihad' in literature" might be helpful to address some of these issues as well. Lastly, Zeno, I think you're wrong on sourcing your definition to the "Department of Justice." That's not the DOJ opinion AFAICT, it's just an indictment written by some DOJ attorney in the trenches. (An indictment is, by definition, a set of unproven allegations). If you can find a similar cite in the US attorney's manual or some global publication, you'd have a much stronger case on this point. --TheronJ 17:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This is, I think, an excellent analysis, and it remains only to be seen whether people are willing to discuss it and implement it. BrandonYusufToropov 19:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * "This is, I think, an excellent analysis, and it remains only to be seen whether people are willing to discuss it..." And you are not discussing it because ... ? -- Zeno of Elea 08:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Zeno, I endorse its contents in full and commit to implementing it. Will you join me in doing that? BrandonYusufToropov 11:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * "This is, I think, an excellent analysis, and it remains only to be seen whether people are willing to discuss it...I endorse its contents in full and commit to implementing it. Will you join me...?" Why arent you discussing it, Yusuf? Why should I join you in some quest that you havent discussed? Your statements are completely void of substance. By saying "it remains only to be seen whether people are willing to discuss it" you are insinuiating that it is up to other editors to discuss while you can sit back and demand that others discuss it and "commit (submit?)" to it. I am not convinced User:TheronJ's arguments and I feel that he has misunderstood the subject matter. It is as much up to you to discuss your view as it is up to me to discuss mine. Yet you do not say anything of substance, other than discussing that "it remains to be seen whether anyone discusses." This is a problem with your editing style that has to be addressed in order for these revert wars to end. Why don't you elaborate on User:TheronJ's arguments, and discuss their merits how they pertain to the actual text and organization of the artice, if you are so commited to implementing them? What exactly is it that you want? -- Zeno of Elea 14:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * "I am not convinced User:TheronJ's arguments and I feel that he has misunderstood the subject matter." That seems likely - I'm only giving you my perspective as a reader.  My suggestion would be (1) maybe you could explain to me what you think I got wrong, so that people could think about how to structure the main page so that it fairly represents the disagreement, and (2) maybe someone could take a shot at writing the main page so that it (i) clearly explains the background of the term, its historical use, and whatever else people can agree on and then (ii) clearly explains the disagreement, including the evidence on both sides.--TheronJ 15:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * '''Well, suppose you and I were to begin by agreeing that the above critique is worthy of (at least) hypothetical consideration, and then try to build a draft based on its suggestions? Like at User:BrandonYusufToropov/BYTZenoJihaddraft, say? BrandonYusufToropov 14:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Please do not use bold, as it is considered shouting on Wikipedia. Please do use proper indentation in order to keep the talk page coherent (I've indented your text for you this time). Please do not start a fork of these article on your user pages, as this will not get us anywhere. And please elaborate on User:TheronJ's arguments, and discuss their merits how they pertain to the actual text and organization of the artice, instead of insisting that I first agree with you arguments before you present them. Also, please explain why you feel justified in deleting the DOJ definition of Jihad and reverting my renaming of the article subsection titles (which I also discussed at Talk:Jihad, to which you failed to respond). -- Zeno of Elea 14:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the bold. You asked what I wanted, and I'm telling you. Why don't you and I work together on this draft (in your wikispace, say), using the guidelines of this peer review as a starting point, then post it here and see what people think of it? BrandonYusufToropov 17:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

"Lastly, Zeno, I think you're wrong on sourcing your definition to the "Department of Justice." That's not the DOJ opinion AFAICT, it's just an indictment written by some DOJ attorney in the trenches.  (An indictment is, by definition, a set of unproven allegations).  If you can find a similar cite in the US attorney's manual or some global publication, you'd have a much stronger case on this point.  --TheronJ 17:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)" I am not a lawyer, and I am not in a position to decide the significance of these legal proceedings before a Grand Jury, in terms of precendent and jurisdiction, or what the current status of these cases is. Nor do I feel that you are in a position to decide such matters. Therefore I fail to see this as a valid justification for deleting this information from Wikipedia. It seems significant enough to me to deserve mention, whether they are cited as being from one of the 93 United States Attorneys employed by the United States Department of Justice to represent the United States federal government in United States district courts, as well as the Chief of the Counterterrorism Section of the Department of Justice, or are simply cited as being from the United States Department of Justice. -- Zeno of Elea 14:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Reverts
What I don't quite understand is why the same text is being repeatedly inserted and removed...if text needs to be added, why can't a different wording be used and added incrementally? If text needs to be removed, why can't it be removed incrementally?

Anyway, I've protected the page again...please start debating amounst yourselves what to do next - the purpose of me filing a peer review was to invite more dialogue between the active editors (not so much with me) and other Wikipedians who might know more about this subject, and so far it has not happened to any significant extent. I'll come back when everyone feels it's ready to unprotect again. --HC 04:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

DOJ quote
The "US Department of Justice definitions" of "jihad" and "violent jihad" are in the rather narrow context of criminal indictments.

Clearly, these are not meant to be comprehensive scholarly definitions. This context should need to be made clear to readers, or better yet, the entire quote removed. The claim "jihad" is the Arabic word for "holy war." certainly sounds like it's trying to be authoritative and comprehensive.

The DOJ indictments are not very good sources to use to establish that Islamic terrorists, or Islamic militants in general, engaged in armed conflict under the doctrine of jihad, for the following reasons:


 * An indictment is an unproven allegation. A grand jury approves the charges to the standard of probable cause.  Other Islamic terrorists and militants have actually been convicted, which meets the much stronger beyond a reasonable doubt standard.


 * The fact that the accused operated under the Islamic doctrine of jihad is actually rather incidental to the charges. The core facts being alleged are that the accused committed various crimes.
 * The United States government is widely perceived to be anti-Islamic, and using its documents to define an Islamic doctrine (even among extremists) sets off red "bias" flags for many readers. Unless there is a specific need to present an non-Islamic or pro-American point of view in the article (balanced with other points of view), many readers will conclude that this source was chosen because the authors had an anti-Islamic or pro-American bias.
 * There is little dispute that Islamic terrorists and other militants invoke the doctrine or rhetoric of jihad to justify their actions and recruit support for their causes. Direct quotations to this effect are widely available, and primary sources are greatly preferred.

Am I correct in my assumption about why this DOJ quote is included? Can we agree to remove it or replace it with something that will accomplish the same goal in a better way? -- Beland 06:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's my take on the DOJ quote.[]

1) It's not accurate to attribute the quote to the "Department of Justice" - the indictment is not an official DOJ document. If the quote is included, I would think a more accurate attribition would be something like "In a September 2005 indictment, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California wrote . . ." 2) Second, I don't think the US Atty is trying to issue an official definition. Paragraph 2 of the indictment states that "As used in this First Superceding Indictment, 'Jihad' is an Arabic word meaning 'holy war.'" and "In this context, jihad refers to . . ." (emphasis added). My understanding of the phrases "as used in this indictment" and "in this context" is that the US Attorney is only defining the term as he is using it in the indictment. (See, e.g., paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, etc.). Therefore, when the indictment says that a defendant offered support for someone else "to wage jihad," the indictment means that the defendant was offering support for violent action, not a personal struggle for internal self-improvement. That seems fairly consistent with the main article - that jihad sometimes means holy war and sometimes doesn't, and it's not uncommon for lawyers to define their terms. 3) Ultimately, I think if it were appropriately explained, the use of "jihad" in the Hayat indictment might be appropriate as part of a larger list of uses of jihad in popular culture - (1) it does present an example of the Western use of jihad as "holy war," and (2) it appears to contemplate that the word may have other meanings in other contexts.

--TheronJ 15:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * You know what? I see your point. If it's appropriately cited to a specific prosecutor as part of a particular criminal case, and not presented with the implication that it is "the official, accurate definition" of what the term "means" to the US government, then including this in context might be helpful as part of a discussion of the term's contemporary use. Not sure if that belongs here or in a linked article, but it should be somewhere.
 * However, I don't believe we should encourage contemporary op-ed usage to "spin" a term that has a tradition of religious meaning going back for more than a millenium.
 * Would we allow a discussion of Leon Uris novels or interactive fiction games to dominate Trinity? Would we allow a discussion of Madonna videos to dominate Virgin birth? I know Jihad is a political word, too, but suggesting its contemporary range of meaning is the one Sean Hannity employs simply defeats the purpose of this article.
 * "Jihad in pop culture" probably does deserve a carefully cited, responsible discussion, either here briefly with a link to a separate article, or here in full as part of a major article. What do others think? BYT 12:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Sourcing for five kinds of jihad
The Encarta article which is referenced to support "Traditional Muslim scholars explained there are five kinds of jihad..." does not actually say anything about it. Another source will have to be found to document this material. (And possibly add more.) -- Beland 08:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Minor notes for future attention

 * It would be helpful to readers unfamiliar with Islamic terms if we were to standardized the spelling of transliterations. For example, the Wikipedia article title is hadith, not e.g. hadeeth.
 * nafs should link to Lataif-e-sitta, such as it is.
 * There are sections in two articles which will need to be synchronized with jihad once it stabilizes:
 * List_of_Islamic_terms_in_Arabic (jihad entry)
 * Religious war

-- Beland 10:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: I have linked "nafs" to "nafs"... That redirects it to "Lataif-e-sitta" which makes it very clear that this is a Sufi position. Sufism is a minority, even "heretical" Muslim position... To pass off Sufism as Islam is NOT completely honest. This sort of thing give credence to the assertions that there is a politically correct cabal enforcing their narrow view of Islam... They should be talking with and persuading their co-religionists rather than bearing false witness to the rest of us. Perhaps, one day Islam will be a "religion of peace"... But until then, pretty is as pretty does. If "jihad" smells, quacks, looks and acts like war, then it is war... A struggle is NOT peaceful...  All of that being said, I have not taken steps to correct the misinformation. We'll just watch, and wait, and see. Emyth 20:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Nafs isnt a sufi position, there are many quranic verses & ahadeeth that deal with cleansing the nafs. F.a.y. تبادله خيال /c 14:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Major rewrite (with proposed text)
I agree that the protected version of the article is not very readable. The section "Islamic definition" reads like it should come first, probably because it actually did so, in previous versions. It is also a little odd to have the "Jihad as warfare" section fall outside it, because of course the doctrine of jihad is a part of the many flavors of Islam.

I think it would help to distinguish Islamic views vs. those of outsiders.

The best way I can think of to get a good idea of how to fix the overall structure of the article is to just go ahead and try to do it. I've posted a proposed draft at Jihad/draft. I've tried to incorporate the suggestions made so far. Though the result is closer to the sort of flow I think would make a good article, it clearly needs more adjusting, and there's a lot of missing information. I've already spent all day researching background information, so I need some help filling in the blanks. I've tried to maintain a delicate balance between the spiritual vs. military aspects of jihad, especially in the introduction, but we're missing a lot of material in that area.

In doing the rewrite, I've also added some material (mostly from your basic Google and Wikipedia searches) and improved (or changed, at least) some existing sections. Hopefully this work will not be lost as the article stabilizes.

The draft is peppered with notes for editors. It would be nice if these were largely resolved before this draft goes live (if people would support doing that), though a "cleanup" notice at the top of that page might excuse transitory mess.

Anyway, please do comment, improve, destroy, bicker, enlighten, etc. as you see fit.

Thanks,

Beland 10:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Jihad as warfare is important enough to deserve its own subsection. It is also mentioned by its full Arabic name ("Jihad bis saif" - Jihad by the sword) in the "Islamic definition" section, but for the purposes of the "Jihad as warfare" section simply "Jihad" and "holy war" are more appropriate. The division of the article into the "Jihad as warfare" and "Islamic definition" makes sense to me. When most people look up this article, they are wondering about the militant variety of Jihad. That is a vast subject on its own. There is also the Islamic definition, which itself a vast subject. These are two overlapping but different subjects. Given the extremely volatile history of this article, and given the complexity if this subject, I don't think you that you should be trying to do a "major rewrite" when you havent even researched the subject before and are now determined to to research from "basic Google and Wikipedia searches." Reading other Wikipedia articles in order to do a major rewrite of this article doesnt make sense. And when you come back from your basic Google search, it is likely that you will return with a specific POV but will think that you are NPOV simply because you have no reader a broader variety of material on the subject. This is an ancient religion, Beland. You don't study an ancient religion with just Google searches and expect to become an authority who can lecture people and do major rewrites of encylopedia articles. I'm not discouraging you from editing this article, I'm just saying that you should concentrate on making incremental changes which you discuss here first, instead of major rewrites. The fork of the article that you have created in your user pages undoes years of work by many editors, a process that has led to the current state of the article. For example, there used to be disputes and edit wars on this article about what is and isn't an "example of jihad" - Some think that Jihad only started when the USSR invaded Afghanistan. Still others think that "true" Jihad ended with Muhammad, some Sunnis say that it ended with the first four Caliphs, some Shiahs say that it ended with the 12th Imam who has been hiding in a tunnel in Iran since the 13th century and will one day return for Armageddon, militant Muslims and critics of Islam believe that everything from Muhammad's battles to 9/11 has to do with the same religion. So it was decided that no specific events would be mentioned here, as there are other articles which detail the history or should detail the history. The fork of the article that you have created in your user pages will reopen this major dispute if you replace this article with your fork. That's just one example. There are too many issues with your lengthy rewrite for someone to spend time taking it apart for you. -- 24.43.240.72 19:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

It's unbelievable that Beland is an admin. He seems to be an Ahmadiyya plant.


 * Re: comment on contemporary examples above -- we can (at some point in article) address pop culture usage of "jihad" without specifying Chechnya or 9/11 or anything that opens up this destructive edit cycle that you mention. The fact that Time magazine uses Jihad in a distinctive way is worthy of mention at some point -- we can (and should) mention that without specifying what conflict is and isn't a contemporary example jihad. You've raised a huge issue and implied there are lots of other issues as big as that, I'm not sure there are. I think this draft is a step forward. PPS: 24.43.240.72, why not sign your name? You have obviously been following the page for a while.
 * Overall, I really like this draft as a starting point, Beland, though of course there's a lot of work to do. I want to suggest (before I start editing there) that we agree to begin filling gap on early Islamic refs by looking at Qur'an's (comparatively rare) usage of the word jihad and of qital, and then compare and contrast these; and then briefly answer the question "what are ahadith," inasmuch as a reader who is trying to learn about historic uses of jihad may not be clear on distinction btwn this source and Qur'an. Thence to examination of use of jihad in ahadith.
 * How do people feel about this sequence up front in the "early Islamic sources" slot Beland has identified? BYT 14:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think Beland is asking the right questions - if people can resolve his notes and add sources, I think the draft would be great.
 * IMHO, the last section, "Views from outside Islam" needs work.  In particular, the last paragraph of this section isn't really relevant to an entry on Jihad, it's a discussion of Western views of Islam as a whole.
 * Is it too early to link to some stubs - historical uses of Jihad, contemporary Islamic uses, and contemporary non-Islamic uses? That would at least give us some place to put stuff like the DOJ quote.  TheronJ 16:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If you want to add material, I would say go ahead and expand the article. Whether the quote is in a different section here or in a subarticle on the same subject, I don't think matters much. -- Beland 11:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I am very much Christian, I am very much American, and I still think there are some very deep anti-islam biases in the talk I've read here and NPAs against people who try to bring the article back to a NPOV. I support a rewrite of this article, for what it's worth.  Hopquick 08:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * One other thing, Can we all reread WP:NPA? This is just sad that people can openly attack on this talk page just because of the passion of the subject matter. If the page were about some less controversial subject, I'm sure there would be warnings a plenty. Hopquick 08:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Reply
In response to 24.43.240.72...


 * I don't think you that you should be trying to do a "major rewrite" when you havent even researched the subject before and are now determined to to research from "basic Google and Wikipedia searches."

Well, I certainly didn't mean to imply that such superficial research would make me an expert. Looking back at my draft, it seems there's about five times as much material missing as there is in there. Mostly it's just a regurgitation of the existing article.

I'm not trying to challenge the facts presented in the article - I'm just trying to find a presentation that will be clearer to readers unfamiliar with the subject, and which people with different perspectives agree is fair. (Which apparently isn't the case right now.)


 * It's unbelievable that Beland is an admin. He seems to be an Ahmadiyya plant.

I guess the fact that you say that means my rearrangement is terribly biased, from your perspective. I'm rather surprised that's the case, but I'll keep that in mind.


 * Jihad as warfare is important enough to deserve its own subsection.

Well, yes, actually, I think there's enough to say about the subject that it will probably need its own article. But this is one of the things about the current ordering which is rather confusing. The intro says there's more to jihad than war, but then, that's dropped, and we hear about war. Then later, we get re-introduced to jihad, including jihad as war, as if the whole war discussion never happened. Also, the title "Islamic definition" is confusing, because it implies the previous section had nothing to do with Islam, which is of course not the case.

I think the problem here was that someone switched the order of the sections, added a quick title to what used to be the intro section, and didn't fix the flow of the article to account for this. I can only assume this was to place greater emphasis on the "holy war" meaning, which is in a way trying to help people who are interested in that section find it faster, but it doesn't provide any context for that discussion.

I would reverse the ordering, but I get the impression "jihad is mostly about holy war" camp would take that as an offense and switch it back.

In any case, the section which feels like it should come next, a discussion of the scriptures and leaders who originated the concept, is entirely missing.


 * Some think that Jihad only started when the USSR invaded Afghanistan. Still others think that "true" Jihad ended with Muhammad, some Sunnis say that it ended with the first four Caliphs, some Shiahs say that it ended with the 12th Imam who has been hiding in a tunnel in Iran since the 13th century and will one day return for Armageddon, militant Muslims and critics of Islam believe that everything from Muhammad's battles to 9/11 has to do with the same religion. So it was decided that no specific events would be mentioned here, as there are other articles which detail the history or should detail the history.

I started to get a sense of the sorts of disagreements people have about this sort of thing reading defensive jihad and offensive jihad. Knowledgeable people such as yourself should contribute these details to the article; reading it, you really get no idea that this controversy even exists (other than perhaps that "liberal Muslims" don't think terrorism is jihad?). If this sort of material is to remain in the two sub-articles, there should at least be a cogent overview here.

The article also doesn't really explain the controversy over emphasis on jihad-as-war vs. jihad-as-spirituality, jihad-as-politics, etc.

-- Beland 12:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Examples
Several people have mentioned that specific examples of jihad are discussed in other articles. Well, we have Islamist terrorism, but as for run-of-the-mill holy wars which may or may not be "real" jihads, depending on who you ask, I haven't really found a comprehensive list. So, I've started list of wars in the Islamic world, which is useful as a reference, anyway. -- Beland 11:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed TOC
After the intro we should have a section on Etymology, that should explain what jihad means, etymologically. JIhad only means struggle, any/every kind of it , thatswhy quran/hadith use the word Jihad fi sabeelilah ( struggle for the sake of God ) to differentiate it from any kind of struggle. It should also be mention that when implying militant form of Jihad, quran/hadeeth use the word Qital fi sabeelilah , that means warfare for the sake of God. So, whenever jihad is used , it means any/every kind of struggle , & whenever qital is used , it means warfare only. The arabic word for holy war is harb um muqaddasa, not jihad. The meaning/definition of Jihad hasbeen the same, from the days of Muhammad til now. So the translation of Jihad as holy war is only illeteracy at its best, even if Einstein does it , its badly wrong.

Next we should have a section on Philosophy of Jihad, not definition of Jihad , not usage of Jihad , not diversity of Jihad , not perspectives/views of Jihad. Defining of Jihad is like defining of Yoga, or definition of Tao. Although simply saying yoga is union & tao is the way. But read Gita or Tao te ching, thats not the definition of both of these words. If concepts this wide as Jihad could have been defined in a line, people wouldnt waste thousands of pages on it. clearly its a philosophy, not a one line concept.

The section should describe briefly Spiritual Jihad ( Jihad bin nafs, that includes fighting against unpure desires...also called jihad bis shaitan by Ibn qaym , Jihad bil qalb , that has a more spiritual flavour , & Mujahida , that is the sufi word for deeper spirtual struggle ) , Social Jihad ( Jihad bil lisan , Jihad bil Yad , Jihad bil maal ) , Intellectual JIhad ( Jihad bil Ilm , Jiahd bil qalam , Ijtahad) , & Jihad bis saif/Qital ( Defencive Jihad, Offencive JIhad ). It becomes easily understandable this way, & the reader gets to know the complete spectrum of Jihad......besides the spicy stuff. We can further explain these terms in their own articles, Defencive/offencive Jihad should also be merged in a Militant Jihad or Qital article & be linked from here. These are different flavurs of the same concept, so they should be explained in a single article in NPOV manner , & not broken down into several illogical pieces.

Next to come should be Jihad in Pop culture & Jihad & terrorism.

Answering some of the above controversies/claims/misconceptions
America didnt start Jihad, but it did resurrect it , anybody remember Reagon...Rambo 3...Stinger missiles........USSR....? America has been the most important variable of Jihad equation for a quarter of a century. The DOJ definition is clearly not NPOV. There are millions of arabic speakers who will tell you this. A rocket scientist can tell you that all neuro scientists are butchers, will we add it to the definition of neurosurgery?

Nafs is not only a part of Lataif-e-sitta, it can mean soul, ego , desire , self e.t.c

"Jihad in pop culture" needs to have a discussion. As Jackson is/was the king of Pop, Presley the king of rock , so is jihad the king of political pop , with billions of dollars invested for/against , hours & hours of media coverage , pages & pages of news papers & websites. 911 hasbeen like the thriller of political pop. About general theological issues section, its non-sence. There is not a theological issue about te legitimacy or importance of spiritual jihad anywhere among muslims. The controversy is among people outside Islam who debate on their web forums upon if muslims consider Jihad bin nafs as the most important part of Jihad or not...this is funny. There is definitely a controversy regarding the authenticity of the particular greater jihad hadith. Shias & Sunnis ( more than 90% of muslim population ) say that the hadith is authentic & there are several other hadiths of the same sort. They also say ( based on quranic verse ) that struggle with kitab (knowledge,logic) is the highest form of jihad. There are others, Salfis/Wahhabis who dont consider the hadith to be authentic , but still consider spiritual jihad as the most important part of Jihad. So the controversy is about hadith, not about spairtual jihad.

There are people who dont like etymology section, b/c old translation dont explain the modern stuff. Etymology is the base of understanding. If somebody doesent like Jihad explained in its proper Islamic concept, why keep it attached to islam. Just say in 21st century Jihad is an american concept, it has got nothing to do with Islam , & this is what Americans have to say about it. But until Jihad remains attached to Islam, its proper explaination w.r.t. the Islamic understanding of it should be given utmost priority. Jihad isnt warfare only, it means struggle , the readers should know this. I havent been watching this article for some time now, but as I can see , the main aim of edits have been to make the article ridicullously impossible to be comprehendable by a common western man , refer any non-militant kind of Jihad as controversial/non-mainstream, & then jump to warfare and implying that its the standard definition. Whenever anybody tries to rectify this, there is an outcry of whitewashing/censorship/bad faith e.t.c. The article was fine before the attack of Zeno & company, people who are known for pushing their personal POV into articles saying "this is what muslims should believe". The aim here....put Jihad as warfare on the top, & Jihad as a whole far below. There should definitely be a difference between encyclopedia article & tabloid article. F.a.y. تبادله خيال /c 20:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The current and most infamous application of jihad applies to "fifth-generation' warfare of transnational political groups. This is what the English-speaking world concerns itself with - and rightly so, because they are involved, as you say, in its resurgence.  I agree with you that it is an American/Western concept.  However, Islamic groups have contributed heavily to this definition.  The emphasis of some Islamist fundamentalists on the Crusades of Christendom has led many Westerners to summarize that jihad is really a late counter-Crusade.  Westerners, like anyone really, would prefer to understand something in the context of themselves, thus the Crusade definition of Islam is readily digested.  Ironically, this interpretation restricts Western views on jihad to only violent conflicts.  After all, if jihad is only holy war (in someone's mind), any suggestion that it is something else must be a cover or an avoidance of the "fact".  If we fail to question assumptions, we perceive ourselves as always right and, by default then, we also know everything. Do not be too frustrated; we are all slow in coming to our own ignorance. --Vector4F 18:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Forget edit wars -- article is a mess
The opening paragraph has been accordioned in so many #$%^&*( directions it's practically playing Lady of Spain.

What was it Thoreau said about simplifying things?

Even if you think jihadis are lurking under your breakfast table, waiting to launch a suicide attack on your cornflakes, you should be interested in article quality, or else you shouldn't be here.

Even if you think all of the violence in the world wrought by religious zealots should be attributed to the Trilateral Commission, you should be interested in article quality, or else you shouldn't be here.

Let's start thinking about the article as a whole. BYT 13:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I added historical views in light of your suggestion. --CltFn 04:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Christian right wing hillbillies shouldn't be allowed internet access.

Historical Views
I like the historical views section a lot and think it's very well done. One suggestion, though, is to confirm that the writers used the word "jihad" in the original quote. For example, if Ibn Khaldun is writing about the muslim obligation to wage holy war, but doesn't use the word "jihad," then the quote is probably more relevant to another page. On the other hand, if he does use the word jihad, I think that's a valid historical reference, especially given the source. TheronJ 15:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

What is Jihad according to reference material?
What is Jihad according to reference material?

The Dictionaries
Webster's Third New International Dictionary, p. 1216 A holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty; a bitter strife or crusade undertaken in the spirit of a holy war.

Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, p. 985. A Moslem holy war; campaign against unbelievers or enemies of Islam.

Webster's New International Dictionary, p. 1336. A religious war against infidels or Muhammedan heretics.

The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, p. 1029. ''A holy war undertaken as a sacred duty to Muslims. ''

The Universal Dictionary of the English Language, p. 631. ''"Contest, war". A Mohammedan war against unbelievers, campaign against the enemies of Islam.''

The American College Dictionary, p. 657. A war of Muhammedans upon others, with a religious object.

Britannica World Language Dictionary, p. 686. A religious war of Moslems against the enemies of their faith.

The Oxford Dictionary, vol. V, p. 583. ''[struggle, contest, spec. one for the propagation of Islam.] A religious war of Mohammedans against unbelievers in Islam, inculcated as a duty by the Koran and traditions.''

Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary, p. 781. A jihad is a holy war which Islam allows merely to fight against those who reject its teachings.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, p. 704. A Moslem holy war against infidels.

Longman Dictionary of the English Language, p. 849. A holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty.

The Harper Dictionary of Modern Thought, p. 327. ''Jihad ('Holy War'). A fundamental tenet of traditional ISLAM obliging the believer to fight the unbeliever until the latter embraces either Islam or the protected status accorded only to those whose religions are based on written scriptures (i.e., Jews, Christians, Sabaeans), the 'peoples of the Book'. A Jihad must be officially proclaimed, by a recognized spiritual leader.''

Nope... don't see anything about peaceful inner projection in these... oops. Must be those pesky anti-islamic western white bigot men at it again! Am I right?! --Nosharia 10:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Muhammad, Qur'anic Texts, the Sharia and Incitement to Violence - not a dictionary but a scholarly paper on jihad (PDF)


 * Thank you for your most valuable contribution. A good piece, I recommend that paper to anyone.--Nosharia 13:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * A pity it's linked on such a blatantly POV website Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 20:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That still doesn't change it's factuality... good try though. The person who wrote it has nothing to do with JihadWatch, which by the way is an excellent website.--Nosharia 16:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * There's a huge difference between an dictionary and an encyclopedia. Concise explanation in dictionary takes its formation through popular usage not through scholarly discourse. There's a huge difference between a dictionary and an encyclopedia.  What's that show on NPR called?  It can teach you a lot about dictionary formation.
 * So, I'd support talking about its common use in the article if we don't (and cite that many dictionaries state it that way) but not to the negation of the nuance of the subject. gren グレン 17:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The point here was to demonstrate that when required to be very short and to the point, Jihad is classified as a military action, not a spiritual one.--Nosharia 18:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think most people would concede that if you the average English speaker uses "jihad" in conversation it means war? But I'm not sure what that means to the article? But you've been blocked... gren グレン 19:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It's seriously questionable to cite general reference material for anything but usage and origin on religious or philosophical terminology. It's a practical exercise and I am not looking to dismiss or criticize it, but let us qualify it: it is by no means conclusive, complete, or delimiting.  I think we can agree that how jihad is defined should not be limited by its dictionary definition, nor that this definition should be the standard by which all other interpretations are valued.  The issues of English vs. Arabic definitions, dictionaries vs. encyclopedias are all valid.  Moving on...


 * A purely literal Qur'anic and historical investigation of the term "jihad" would suggest that it is basically an obligation to follow the prophet into conflict or to use force in fighting for the faith (in both aggressive and defensive conflict). This is fairly clear; the point is made.


 * However, the term and idea has evolved, so we would be negligent to say it is this one thing and no other. It can be more than one thing.  What's more, it is possible that the meaning of jihad is not actually known - that the nature of "holy war" is not actually known - and that all existing positions are only theories.  However, we know that all theories of jihad are spiritual, whether militant or not.  It seems prudent to include this as central to the definition.


 * The only factuality Wikipedia need be concerned with is the use and meaning of the term as can be reasonably determined. We have reasonable definitions of jihad as a physical, war-like conflict and a spiritual, intracommunal struggle, among others.  If the Muslim world is not unanimous on the definition and application of jihad, it is unscholarly for this article to fail to communicate this fact above any one definition.  I think NPOV demands no less than scholarship. --Vector4F 19:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Quotes
I don't think having a laundry list of quotes is exactly how to make a good encyclopedia article. I think most of that should be moved to wikiquote. gren グレン 21:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a dispute regarding the historical and contemporary meanings of jihad, so the quotes have some relevance to show how the word was used. (I still don't fully understand the debate, but it seems to be whether jihad primarily meant violent struggle in early, mid, and/or contemporary muslim use).  Maybe the quotes could be split off to separate pages, though.TheronJ 15:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The quotes should be in wikiquote, because they are too numerous, interpretative, and their authority is difficult to gauge (e.g. we are not talking about Mohammad). It is important to note the various classifications of jihad and cite various experts who support these classifications, but this does not require a listing of quotations.  The Wikipedia convention of no more than two seems workable here.  Whether one wants to call jihad abc or xyz, a list of quotations is not the best way to make this point. --Vector4F 17:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. One or two quotes on any topic should be enough, and it should be clear what the point of the quotes are.TheronJ 20:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I actually agree with all three of you .I put that laundry list of quotes (as TheronJ rightly said) to get out of this debate about the meaning of Jihad in early & mid periods of Islam. There are people out there who believe that Jihad has always been a holy crusade to kill & rape Infidels, & then some liberal, apologetic Muslims came up with these spiritual/social definitions of Jihad in the present decade, to save the face of Islam. There are people out there who believe that DOJ definition of Jihad is more relevant then Islamic definitions .The main aim of putting these quotes was to tell the reader, that these authentic medieval scholars (that includes jurists, philosophers e.t.c) classified Jihad into following classes or stages. Stages which make Jihad a part of every day life of a common person who has never seen a sword. And non-combative Jihad isn’t something new.

I tried to make a section out of these quotes, but it was difficult. Since different people categorized Jihad in different ways, I wasn’t able to sum up all that in one paragraph. So the best option seemed to put all the quotes, as they are, in a section. I agree what I did isn’t the best option for writing the article, but its the best way out....more exactly the best way to escape from the article .These people will be back .When they are , the exact same idiocy will start again (with new names). I am really not in a mood to start nonsense revert warring & debates with idiots. If you guys are, feel free to edit it in any way you like. Cheers. F.a.y. تبادله خيال /c 20:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * a few days ago(see above), Beland asked for sources for other kinds of Jihad . That was another reason for putting all that here . F.a.y. تبادله خيال /c 20:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Also,can anybody write an etymology out of that big intro . F.a.y. تبادله خيال /c 20:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, on the plus side it's good we have the quotes - they are great for notes. In my opinion, this whole article needs a new ontology, a skeleton to work from - it seems our efforts to classify are going in different directions.  I will do some reading and think on this. In the meantime, I propose we copy these quotes in wikiquote "jihad", replacing what is the long list of Qur'an excerpts that is there. I'll toy with the introduction too.  --Vector4F 03:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

It should be explained that the word "jihadist" or "jihadism" is very offensive to Muslims because it was created and is only used by non-Muslims who wish to further the cause of prejudice against us. Hajjagha 21:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed the 'liberal Muslims' bit at the end of the "Jihad as Warfare" section. There are plently of conservative-minded, even fundementalist, Muslims who do not at all suscribe to the ideologies held by Islamist groups. Amibidhrohi 18:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

"Literally, jihad means that Muslims should fulfill their duties to promote the cause of Islam"

Perhaps this should be reworded? The "cause of Islam" is left as an exercise for the reader to figure out, and that's not encyclopedic. I'm guessing trying to describe "the cause of Islam" is going to be quite difficult, unless it is written right in the Qur'an or something. Then you'll probably have people that disagree with the interpretation and whatnot regardless. Anyone want to try rewording it (or describing it if it can be done easily and agreeably)? --Ben 03:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the cause of Islam is the spread of Islam and submission to God, which are bound together (nothing really controversial about that). There is no complete literal meaning jihad (in the grammatical sense of an object to the verb), unless you are citing a specific interpretation of it (which is rare outside jurisprudence).  "Struggle" for what?  The object is never clearly singular - there are many activities that involve struggling for Islam mentioned in the Qur'an.  What's more, jihad is not a lonely word, but sits in a family of words that all take on different contexts in the Qur'an. Also, some verses can be considered "abrogated" depending on the jurist you're reading.  And of course, there are limitations on any jihad.


 * But back to the article. How about something like:
 * Literally, jihad refers to the obligation placed on all Muslims to "stuggle" or "strive" in their submission to God. The specific obligation(s) to which jihad refers are a matter of deep controversy, both within Islam itself and among non-Islamic scholars.  Various religious experts have postulated from one to many different activities deserving the application of jihad.  However, nearly all interpretations of jihad involve three major components:
 * Jihad is mandatory for all Muslims
 * One "struggles" against an obstacle, for example personal failing or an enemy combatant
 * Jihad is not exclusive to physical violence (e.g. it can involve debate or other non-violent activities)

I'd like to suggest that the following quote from the second surah in the Quran after the first mention of Jihad & used by Bukhari as a premble in his book of Jihad, be somehow incorporated into the Jihad article:

“Jihad is holy fighting in Allah’s Cause with full force of numbers and weaponry. It is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars. By Jihad, Islam is established, Allah’s Word is made superior (which means only Allah has the right to be worshiped), and Islam is propagated. By abandoning Jihad, Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape from this duty, dies with one of the qualities of a hypocrite."

I would appreciate suggestions on how best to work it in.

~Anonymous user 1:02 AM, Sunday 11 June, 2006 (Eastern Time)


 * --Vector4F 08:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The multitude of quotes should be moved to Wikiquote. The section should summarize and use the quotes as references Zakneifien 11:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Millitant Islamism
Like it or not groups like Al Qaeda and Hezbullah use the word Jihad to describe their terrorist activities. Even 'nonviolent' groups like Hizb Ut Tahrir use that line of rhetoric. The article must reflect that in a section of significant size, since this is in fact a significant topic. Any addition to this section should be of high quality, researched and sourced. Those who have strong opinions on this matter but little knowlege should rather read on the subject than write on it. It's important that the encyclopedia entry seem encyclopedic in its quality. Jihadism isn't only a problem for the United States. Terrorist attacks have occured in Indonedia, in Egypt, in Bangladesh, all for roughly the same reason, all using jihad as the description of their actions. If I have time, I'll participate in this too. Amibidhrohi 23:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Jihad as warfare
I would like to add the following. Please comment.


 * Nevertheless, the notion of offensive military jihad was invoked by Islamic leaders to 'legitimate' wars of conquest. The major imperial Muslim dynasties of Ottoman Turkey (Sunni) and Persia (Shia), each established systems of authority around traditional Islamic institutions. Part of this incorporation involved various interpretations of jihad.  For example, in the Ottoman empire the concept of ghaza was promulgated as a sister obligation to jihad.  The Ottoman ruler Mehmed II is said to have insisted on the conquest of Constantinople by justifying ghaza as a basic duty.  Later Ottoman rulers would apply ghaza to justify military campaigns against the Perian Safavid dynasty.


 * Notably, these concepts of jihad differ substantially from purely textual interpretations. They were typically developed in the political rhetoric of leaders, rather than major Islamic schools of jurisprudence.  This also meant they often lacked the complex legal and ethical dimension of scholastic theories of jihad.  Finally, the fulfilling of ghaza was almost strictly secular in exercise and frequently involved non-Muslims.
 * source: Bonney, Richard (2005). Jihad: From Qur'an to bin Laden, Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN.

--Vector4F 22:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC), updated 00:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC) The Caliphs that followed immediately after Muhammad's death, Abu Bakr and Umar, both engaged in unprovoked wars that expanded the first Islamic empire... Doesn't that also figure into the idea of offensive Jihad? Amibidhrohi 07:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with the above, only 'occasionally' is an understatement, and the same is as true for Persian offensives. Fastifex 09:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You certainly have a point that the two named empires didn't have a monopoly on (ab)using jihad logic, so perhaps the text should be clearer there, and possibly name more cases. However, as the early caliphate (when political power was still secondary to religious authority) is thé text book case of making Islam possible where it had never existed (mainly at the expense of Christianity), covered by the very definition, it doesn't need to be singled out in a paragraph that points at political (ab)use, so I feel offensives against Muslim states fit far better here Fastifex 09:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I added the text to the article. --Vector4F 00:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Deleted paragraph
I have removed the following paragraph: "Despite what is known to factually be the linguistic origin and translation of the word in Arabic, and its associated meanings detailed already, certain non-Muslim communities and indeed bureaucracies of non-Muslim governments have assumed definitions of jihad of their own. The phrase 'Holy War' is most often, though incorrectly, associated with 'jihad.'" It's clear that the characterization of opinions expressed in this section as "incorrect" and the claim of factual knowledge of the meaning of the word "jihad" constitutes original research. Pecher Talk 08:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The factual meaning of the word "jihad" is stated and explained in the opening sections of the entry, with sources. Basing assumptions on unargued interpretations of what the word means is'nt original research. Amibidhrohi 20:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No. It's original research to say that someone's definition of jihad is incorrect because it differs from the definition in the article. Pecher Talk 21:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Then remove the word "incorrectly", don't delete entire paragraphs. Amibidhrohi 23:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

About the edits
iI am a Muslim seventh grader who lives in Brooklyn, New York City. For those of you who wish to know I am of Bangladeshi descent, not that it should matter. Personally, I think all of you guys are fools for arguing over the "definition" of Jihad. I believe you should keep it to the actual Muslims. We know the most about this stuff anyway. When I mean we, I mean the guys who have been studying the religion for years. I've been reading all of your comments and of course the actual article. It seems to me that the idea of 70 houri needs some serious verification. Maybe you need a Quran or a Hadeez that has been translated word for word even if it does not make sense. (Don't worry, it'll have the some extra words in brackets to clarify, I recommend The Quran translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali.) Besides that, I have to applaud the person who said Jihad isnt always physical. And although I totally do not like the government definition of Jihad and all other definitions relating to terrorism, I believe they should stay for the sole purpose of reference. They are not right but an opinion is an opinion. However, everything that deals with religion is an opinion. My last thought is that you don't delete and only add info. It gives a better perspective. I know I sound like a fool but its all opinion. I'll check back later to see what the rest of you have to say.


 * Welcome to wikipedia, create a username, and join in on the fun? I've been watching the article from a distance, and I am always amused when people try to jump a complex word or phrase from one language into a simple word from another language. I'll check out the version you recommend, I've been getting by with my Dawood/Penguin version. Ronabop 06:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for noticing! Well I really believe that this article would be easier to clarify if people were a bit more tolerant. Just a question? Why is it that Jihad is more fought over its definition than the Crusades? I believe that it has to do more and more with the level of tolerance around here. Which in my opinion is pretty low. Also, I wish to question what Quran translations do all of the editors of this page use. Just want to make sure we're all on the same page so I can follow along. Znitrx 03:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Disambig to 'Jyhad'

 * For the collectible card game Jyhad, see Vampire: The Eternal Struggle.

Not sure who added the above disambig to the Jihad article, but it bears an uncanny resemblance to an 'advertisement' profitting from the charged nature of this subject material. This seems to me to be virtually identical to this: shameless 'Jihad' band plug. Unless this CCG game published under the name 'Jyhad' has millions of players (which is highly doubtful... if someone wants to prove me wrong please do provide a reliable source) its disambig link doesn't merit being at the top of an article who's word has signficance to billions, it just belittles the whole concept of Jihad. Netscott 18:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There was a redirect for the term Jyhad that pointed here... I've adjusted that to redirect to Vampire: The Eternal Struggle and inserted a disambig to this article Jihad. Netscott 21:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The card game title was chosen in 1994, long before Jihad became anything of a subject in the western world. It originated from the role-playing game Vampire: The Masquerade, where the term (like many others) was used to describe topics loosely based on their original idea. In fact, those terms were chosen because they were not very well known in America.
 * I doubt that such a disambigutation could count as advertisement. A disambigutation does not really depend on the number of people who are interested in it, but on the probability of people reaching the wrong page. I agree with you that the punk band disambigutation was unnecessary, as it no such article did exist. VTES on the other hand does have an article and I believe quite some people who'd be interested in it. As I am no player myself, I can't verify whether the old term Jyhad is used very much anymore. I believe most people know it as Vampire: The Eternal Struggle, but am not sure about that. So it depends on you whether to mention it or not. An alternative could be to create Jihad (disambigutation) and mention that one. What do you think? -- Genesis 21:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * What planet are you from? "Jihad" has been a subject in the Western world since the war with the Philippines in the 19th century!  And certainly it was a topic of interest throughout the 1990s and earlier.  Meanwhile, the video card game is still not "a subject in the western world," at least as measured by what gets reported in the news.  Are you seriously suggesting that some obscure vampire game is more prominent of a topic in the media or among scholars than a central tenet of a religion followed by over a billion people?  I think that if there is going to be a disambig page, this page should be the default with "for other meanings of jihad see ___."  Even then, there should be evidence of other meanings more significant than some vampire game that doesn't even spell the word the same. --csloat 22:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Going to have to agree with csloat on that last point.... you'd either have to be an uninformed person or too young to know about such events as the April_1983_US_Embassy_bombing and 1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing (in which 241 US service members were killed) that were claimed (source CNN) by Islamic Jihad or previous events as csloat makes mention of. Make no mistake about it... the concept of Jihad (at least in terms of an association with terror) has been known about for quite a long time in the Western World. Ergo, a disambig to a now defunct name for a small CCG could be construed as belittlement of what this article on Jihad is all about. Netscott 22:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh well, my mistake. Rather meant to say that it was less of a topic than after 9/11. I am loosely informed about the '83 topics, although I am both too young and not all that affected, beeing no American myself. I just was bothered by the fact that the game term was thought to be an attention seeking advert. And I did not mean to say that the card game (where did that video come from?) had any comparable prominence in the media or at all. But as I stated, I believe that disambigutations are no contest of which topic is most important. And there IS a big community of collectible card game players. Of course they are only the tiniest of minorities compared to the billions of people. And when proposing a disambig page, I proposed just the same thing as csloat did. A page for those few people who where not looking for this article, but for the collectible card game, the punk band, the World of Darkness term or any other probable meaning. What did you expect me to write on the page? "For the great card game about cool vampires, see Jihad (disambigutation)"? -- Genesis 23:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'm being judgemental but since we tend to be Geeky People working on this encyclopedia to some of us some of our other geeky pursuits may seem to have a larger than real life importance. Because of the overwhelming number of people who do not have confusion surrounding the term Jihad and it's significance in the context of the Arabic language and Islam... the need for disambiguation just isn't there. Besides those with geeky pursuits usually tend to know how to get to the information about those pursuits with relative ease compared to say someone who wasn't geeky. Netscott 23:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh and that band I pointed out with the above diff did have a rather small (like say a stub) entry about themselves at the time that edit was made... but in the end that entry was later *deleted* due to insignificance. Netscott 23:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah well, just thought I propose it. Simply wanted to inform you that it was no advert and that you might consider a disambig page, but your reasons make sense. Didn't want to make this a big topic. I'd also like to thank you for your polite tone, as I found csloat's rather insulting, considering the relevance of the discussion. Oh and by the way, I don't like CCG's at all anyway, just geeky about RPGs
 * PS: I have no idea how your text got changed when I edited mine. I'm having connection problems right now, hence the double edit back then, but I did not touch your code... -- Genesis 23:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'm willing to concede that the disambig was perhaps not an 'advertisement' (which is why I didn't state such a thing in the first place)... I suspect my view about it was tempered by the earlier Band disambig... in reality I'm just a fellow editor like yourself and while I think I've got a strong argument for the lack of need for disambiguation that doesn't mean that my arguement is authoritative. Simply meaning if you feel a disambig is warranted.... by all means be bold and establish one. Ah and I see what happened to my text... sorry to have made an accusation. As far as a polite tone, there's little reason to be spiteful in a case like this... we're all learning here... and certain editors have a bit more wisdom than others (usually comes with age... hehe). Ok... thanks for your explaining your views on the matter. Netscott 23:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Qur'an and Hadieth as starting point
I think the main (islamic) sources to know about jihad are the Qu'ran and the Hadieth. For example, in the Hadith of Bukhari for example it says that Muhammed ordered to kill people and it says that people who kill people who alter their faith are rewarded by Allah. The motivation of terrorists nowadays is not different. Here som quotes: Narrated Jabir: The Prophet said, "Who is ready to kill Ka'b bin Ashraf (i.e. a Jew)." Muhammad bin Maslama replied, "Do you like me to kill him?" The Prophet replied in the affirmative. Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say what I like." The Prophet replied, "I do (i.e. allow you)." (4:52:271) Source: Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Book 52:Fighting for the Cause of Allah (Jihaad)

"Narrated Al-Bara bin Azib: Allah's Apostle sent a group of persons to Abu Rafi. Abdullah bin Atik entered his house at night, while he was sleeping, and killed him. (5:59:370)" Source: Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Book 59: Military Expeditions led by the Prophet (pbuh) (Al-Maghaazi)

Another interesting chapter in this respect is chapter 84, titled Dealing with Apostates

Right i think this hadith is being blown completely out of proportion and is not given the full right of explanation. The killing of apostates only stays in if the apostate is causing fitnah among the muslims and is making the muslims divided and fight each other. The apostate should be killed if he is also leading the muslims that have weak faith and can be easily mislead. Thus this fitnah should be avoided and the apostate killed. If the apostate keeps his new faith to himself and doesnt show it in public then it is up to him and his Lord.

Clean-up
I ran across this article while looking up User: Germen's numerous slanted edits to Islam related Articles. The idea of cleaning up this particular article is making me giddy with glee. All the various people with their various POV's don't interest me. This article should be easy. It should be simple. Hell, it has potential as a feature article when cleaned up. This article is SO easy I can't understand why it's been "an issue". Jihad is a clear cut concept with plenty of literature and even when discussing Islamic extremism it is easily pointed out that they are performing Jihad, in the sense that they are struggling (literal meaning of Jihad). Whether the struggle is righteous is another matter. I can give you everything you want on the linguistics with references. I can give Hadiths up to your ears and I think I can pull the article off without engendering sensible POV conflicts. Any takers? I'll stick it up there and you can discuss things. Angrynight 03:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone, anyone, just say the word and I'll set myself loose on the thing. The only reason I'm even asking is because I'm worried that someone will speedy revert my edit and out of respect for the people who have been contributing to this article for some time and have had it on their watchlists for centuries, millenia even. Angrynight 03:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well the main aim of a lot of Islamophobes here has been to make Jihad so difficult to understand that by default the easiest meaning of it comes to be "killing of all non-muslims". They are forced into thinking by their gurus that what they know is reality, & the rest is Islamist propoganda , while in reality what they know is nothing but right-wing zionist propaganda itself . If you have time , add your material to the talk page , so that oters can discuss . F.a.y. تبادله خيال /c 08:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Angrynight, cite your edits, be reasonable, and your effort will be supported and appreciated. --Vector4F 19:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I Suggest that there is also a section for satire such as the infamous "derka derka mohammad jihad" of team america or news debates.

Funny as hell! But innapropriate. :-) Angrynight 21:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * not really funny

Znitrx 00:53, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Angrynight, we would all love your edits on this. But let's take them slowly. Unless you are making small edits, it would be much appreciated if you posted all major re-writes of sections in the Talk page and allowed some discussions on it before putting them into the article. Bless sins 02:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The first intiative taken in the clean up should be reducing the size of "Classification of Jihad". There are currently 9 persepectives on the classification of Jihad. Most of them are redundant as they say the samething over and over.

The views of Al-Hajj Talib 'Abdur-Rashid and Ibn al-Qayyim, are basically the same. Therefore one of them must be removed.

Ramadan Buti and Imam al-Dardir, have the same views as well.

Imam Bahouti and Nawawi both call Jihad an obligation community, therefore quoting one is sufficient.

Ibn Rushd is also saying something very similar to the rest, his perspective should be deleted.

Ibn Baz 's perspectives are a little bit (though not entirely) unique, so they should stay. Karen armstrong's perspectives should e moved to the non-Muslim opinions section.

Therefore I'm proposing the removal of several points for the sake of brevity. Which one's, should be discussed. Bless sins 03:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * These people are from different times, different places , with different fields of expertise , & they shed light on different flavours of the same thing . Ibn rushd was a philosopher , Nawawi was a muhaddith , Ibn Baz is considered as a wahhabi , Ibn Qayin a salafi , Armstrong a westerner , others are contemporary people . I dont think any of them needs to be removed . There has been too much fighting over here upon the misconception that Jihad is fight only . All of it needs to stay to save us from more non-sense POV pushing . F.a.y. تبادله خيال /c 14:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The thing is that this section is waaay too long, and therefore needs to be shortened. Secondly, these people are repeating the smae thing. Can't we quote one, and say that this view is also shared by XYZ? I think we should remove some parts. BTW, Karen Armstrng doesn't even classify Jihad, she only justifies it.


 * Hey, I really want to decrease the size of the classification section, but I need a green signal from some one, ofcourse. Any bod interested?? Bless sins 02:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Phylosophy of jihad
The section "Phylosophy of jihad", which has recently been removed from the article, did nor contain a single reference in it, which automatically makes the section original research. Add here blatantly POV language and you have too many policies to be violated in just a couple of paragraphs. Pecher Talk 22:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Its always good idea to click the links before deleting whole section . . Balantly POV language....its an Islamic concept, according to muslims . F.a.y. تبادله خيال /c 20:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ramblings of a certain writer (Parvez Manzoor) on a propaganda website (IslamOnline) do not even remotely qualify as a reliable source per WP:RS. Pecher Talk 21:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Just because a thing doesent suit your POV doesent mean it should be deleted . May be you should learn to differentiate b/w propaganda & fact . And stop vandalising Islam related pages . F.a.y. تبادله خيال /c 17:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Just because something is considered un-reliable, doesn't mean that the whole section must be deleted. "Philosophy of Jihad" is an important topic and should therefore remain. We should re-write it with different and more sourced content.Bless sins 12:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That's problem that the whole section is referenced to unreliable sources. The topic is indeed important, but the material in Wikipedia must be reliable in the first hand. Pecher Talk 21:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Etymology and definition
"Some Muslims consider jihad to be the most misunderstood aspect of their religion by non-Muslims ." Utterly unencyclopedic statement, which says nothing to the reader. Pecher Talk 22:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have modified the etymology section, mainly because it doesent contian any etymology , & secondly because its POV . F.a.y. تبادله خيال /c 17:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Cross-Wiki Question
Is the first link in the Russian Wikipedia article pro-violent jihad? I don't want the CIA to come after me for clicking on it. If it is, it should probably be removed there. BirdValiant 02:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Both links are to propaganda sources. Pecher Talk 21:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It will be a good idea to define Jihad solely from the Islamic only reliable and foremost source: Quran.

http://www.islamicity.com/articles/articles.asp?ref=IV0603-2947&p=1

This article explains all the Jihad references used in the Quran.

Fixing references
Obviously, the references on this page need to be fixed. None of them even have any link text, and a lot of them are repeats and should be done properly. --Cyde Weys 21:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Clarifying Grammar of intro?
The intro currently reads "Jihad [...] connotes a wide range of meanings: anything from an inward spiritual struggle to attain perfect faith to a political or military struggle to further the Islamic cause. To those the neologism "jihadist" is sometimes applied." Who does "to those" refer to? I suspect the second sentence should read "Individuals who support the second position are sometimes referred to by the neologism "jihadist".", but I'm not confident enough that I've interpretted it correctly to make that change. Irrevenant 02:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

blaming "translation"
the use of "often translated to english as " is a form of weaslespeak. This article is about Jihad not about translation. We should make sure the  meaning  of Jihad is clear to the reader. Zeq 05:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * A link about "Nazis planning a Holocaust in Palestine" has nothing to do with Jihad. The Nazis definitely do not fit the definition of Jihad and this article isn't a place to add conspiracy links you can't find another place for. Jihad isn't something you can just go to to add links like this.-- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 01:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You are right off course, it was the weong link. Now corrected. Thanks for your help. BTW, if you think this is not correct (that Jihad is  not  what many muslim think it is - a holy war) please explain your objections and bring sources. Clearly this is not just a translation issue, there is meaning behind the word Mujahadin and it is not just a group of people who recite verses from Kuran and Suras. Zeq 03:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You can't quote what Al-Qaeda says as a definition of Jihad and they didn't even say that in the source! This is not an article to simply combine an opinion of all extremist groups. What it gives as reasons for it actions are not the definition of this religious concept and even then you definitely can't quote them like that in an introduction of an article. It's pov, not appropriate in a encyclopedia and completely destroys what the sentence is trying to say which is that it not only refers to the military struggle. -- a.n.o.n.y.m   t 19:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Anony, which of the follwoing 3 aspects is not a valid aspect of Jihad in your view:
 * Support God's religion,
 * establishment of Islamic rule,
 * restoration of the Islamic Caliphate
 * Zeq 19:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Zeq that isn't the case. You can't inaccurately quote or quote at all what one organization says about Jihad to apply to the entire definition. Also that completely destroys what the sentence is trying to say, which is that it not only refers to the military struggle or fighting. I compromised by changing just fighting to fighting as a military struggle to clarify what you mean. All these aspects are given in the part about Jihad as a warfare so this is discussed anyways. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 19:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If you don't provide valid objections to why these 3 aspects of Jihad should not be (based in your POV) in the article 1st paragrpah. If you don't want them please discuss and try to convince. Zeq 20:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Those are valid objections. This is an encyclopedia. You have to understand how a quote is used and where it can be used. -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 20:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I did not understand your answer. If you don't want it as quote, fine, I will add these as non quote. Zeq 04:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)