Talk:Muslim attitudes toward terrorism

Untitled
What exactly is the scope of this article? Because if I was to begin listing every condemnation of terrorism by a Muslim cleric, the article would not end.VR talk  00:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

HAMAS
And again im deleting this, despite a clear bot response claiming ive given "no reason". Hamas is a recognised government. It's policies are not "Islamic", whatever the hell that means, and is irrelevant to this article. Trying to tie in support of an Islamic government in a democractic election as "Muslims support terrorism" is not only POV but COMPLETELY against Wikipedias rules. It's being removed. 124.148.221.42 (talk) 08:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Polemic
In its current state, this article is obviously a polemic that gives the impression of trying to rectify an idea that Muslims support, or at least do not actively speak out against, terrorism. Example of this attitude are present in: I'm not placing a POV tag on here since these are only my initial impressions. Maybe when somebody searches for reliable sources along these lines to balance the article, it will turn out to be more balanced than I initially perceived it to be. Shrigley (talk) 00:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The "Muslim diversity" section, which adopts a pedogagic, non-encyclopedic tone to argue that only a subsection of one of three subsections of Sunni Muslims ("Jihad", out of "Political" and "Missionary") engage in terrorism. By excluding "Political" Islam, it seems to exempt Islamism from a connection with terrorism, when it is primarily Islamist groups that are the perpetrators of what is called "Islamic terrorism". Also, some Islamic terrorist groups (especially when in conflict with non-Muslims) do adopt a missionary tone. Furthermore, by omission it suggests that there is no Shia terrorism, when actually one of the best Islamic terrorist groups, Hezbollah, identifies with Shiism.
 * The "Condemnation" section quotes a lengthy diatribe from a "Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance" who argues that Muslim condemnations of terror are "ignored", and presents evidence of Muslim condemnation of 9/11 and terrorism "contrary to common image". A fuller article would fully explain what the "common image" is, and from where it is derived. Similarly, the cited Pew Poll uses weasel words: "support for terrorism in the Muslim world declining" (from what to what? Well, in Summer 2002 73% of polled Lebanese said violence against civilian targets is "sometimes justified"; in March 2004 40% in Morocco, 41% Pakistan, 43% Jordan; Jordan actually increased to 53% in 2007.)
 * Throughout the article, you have examples of Muslims who "called upon Muslims to protect Christian churches" in Egypt&mdash;yet ignores the pervasive persecution of Copts that makes this call a notable exception, Yemeni tribesmen who condemned Al Qaeda (not much of a connection to Islam here), and generally no context or opposing views that would suggest that there are any Muslims who support terrorism, even in the case when terrorist groups control large portions of their country (like Yemen, Egypt and Pakistan). The section named "perceived support" (obviously a POV title) doesn't even begin to puncture the polemic attitude.

Removal of unbalanced sentence in article introduction
I have removed the following sentence from the introduction of the article


 * "Some have viewed a connection between Islam and terrorism, because of some high profile terrorist groups like al Qaeda that profess religious reasons for their attacks."

The sentence has been removed for the following reasons:


 * Doesn't meet Wikipedia's MOS/Lead Section
 * The topic of perceived connections between Islam and terrorism is not a central topic of the article
 * Only one sentence in the article is there mention of people viewing a connection between Islam and terrorism, which would not qualify as a "concise overview" of the article


 * Creates a bias not reflective of the entire article
 * The article covers both attitudes (for and against) terrorism, therefore leaving that sentence without a complimenting sentence mentioning that a connection to Islam is not accurate (i.e.: terrorism as a result of misinterpreting of Islam) creates a biasDjrun (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Biased?
This article seems a little biased. Especially when it comes to recent examples. This page is about Muslim attitudes towards terrorism, and yet it makes no mention of the fact that Islamic countries like Pakistan have trained and supported terror groups to attack India and Afghanistan. I think a fact of this magnitude cannot be ignored, and if it is, it clearly points to the biased nature of this article. Perhaps a debate is needed for the NPOV dispute tag on the article. Aditya San. (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT. Anyone can edit, you know. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Apparently not, since you'll just revert it back to your biased, pro-Muslim stance as soon as anyone touches it, no matter how much evidence is presented to refute your non-factual and heavily-biased worldview.

Sham of an article
What on earth does "Muslim attitudes toward terrorism" even mean? How do you write an article about the attitudes of 1.6 billion people toward a topic? Would it make sense to have an article entitled "Chinese attitudes toward terrorism" or "Muslim attitudes toward waffles"?

I suggest that this article be removed entirely for being so overly vague as to be meaningless. Earksiinni (talk) 08:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * you are welcome to propose the article for deletion, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to remove an article. We don't have articles like "Muslim attitudes toward waffles" or "Chinese attitudes toward terrorism" because those subject have zero coverage in reliable sources, whereas the subject of this article does have ample coverage. Significant coverage in independent reliable sources is the main criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia; see Notability for further information. If you feel you can demonstrate that the subject isn't notable, then follow the instructions at Articles for deletion. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The article does have meaning, because it has been stratified by country. There are distinct polls done for Muslim attitudes toward terrorism in the UK, France and other countries. The article now has coverage of this material. You could edit the article to make those sections into headings. I do not see the need for that myself.--FeralOink (talk) 01:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

POV tag
I added the POV tag to this article, because it is horrendously one-sided. It takes no account of the fact that the definition of "terrorism" varies among different groups of people and seems to be an attempt to whitewash history.142.105.159.60 (talk) 01:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm removing the tag because the allegation is groundless. The article neutrally reports what sources say and goes into detail about polling results that used a clear definition of terrorism to mean "suicide bombing or other forms of violence against civilians". ~Amatulić (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Page merge?
There is a fairly extensive section on Muslim attitudes toward terrorism at Islamic terrorism. We should clearly choose one or the other to focus on. I would advocate merging this separate article into this "mother" article, as there isn't all that much material, and it will be easier to maintain a properly balanced article in one larger article devoted to the topic. But willing to be convinced otherwise. Peregrine981 (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The topic of Islamic terrorism is huge. The Wikipedia article about Islamic terrorism is enormous, and too lengthy for one article. Instead, I would suggest consolidating the section from that article, about Muslim attitudes toward terrorism, into this article.--FeralOink (talk) 01:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Bad link
I just checked manually. I am not a bot. The archived linked failed. I got the following from the Internet Archive for the link, "Si è verificato un inconveniente con questo articolo, siamo spiacenti." As for the original link to the website, adniki dot com, I got a 404 not found error.--FeralOink (talk) 00:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Biased reverts of factual edits by biased user Amatulic
Your obvious bias is showing, pal. Do you need a second source that spells basic logic out more explicitly before you will allow truthful extrapolation of the given data? Here, then. And I quote: "Muslims polled in the Palestinian territories were the only group to express majority support for suicide bombings, the Washington Free Beacon noted. A majority of Muslims polled in countries like Pakistan, Jordan and Turkey said suicide bombings are “never” justified in the name of Islam."

If Palestinian Muslims are the "only" group to express majority support for suicide bombings, according to Pew's poll data, then it stands to reason that they are, indeed, "more likely to support suicide bombing than any other country or territory of Muslims on the planet," as I stated, since every other country *must*, again by virtue of simple logic, have support for suicide bombings as a minority stance if Palestinians are the only ones who support it as a majority. If you support suicide bombings, and you are the majority of the population, then, yet again by virtue of simple logic, you cannot be in favor of non-violent diplomacy or peace. The problem is widespread, since a majority supports it. And, clearly, that support for suicide bombing has complicated the I/P peace process, given that Israel had to wall off the entire Palestinian territories to finally put a stop to it.

So what I had to say is not editorializing - it's a fact that has now been shown to you twice. Put my edit back, and stow your clearly biased Jew-hatred back where it belongs - in your own head.


 * - please let my edit stand. I have provided ample evidence to support it and at this point, Amatulic is simply obstinately standing in the way based on his own personal biases in the case of facts showing the reality is otherwise than what he believes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.140.61.50 (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Please review WP:SYNTHESIS. Basically, in your edit, you are synthesizing a conclusion that isn't stated in the source cited in the article, nor in the source you cite above. It's really that simple, and not that hard to understand. Find a source that says that Palestinian Muslims are "more likely to support suicide bombing than any other country or territory of Muslims on the planet"; your source doesn't say that, it says that they were the only group in the Palestinian territories expressing majority support.
 * As for your conclusion that this polling data is "heavily complicating the Israel-Palestine peace process by nature of a widespread societal element that does not support non-violent diplomacy or peace as a goal", that's pure synthesis, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. We don't draw conclusions for readers, we present them with sourced information and let them draw their own conclusions. Furthermore, this article is about Muslim attitudes toward terrorism, not the Palestine-Israel conflict, so it doesn't really belong in this article. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Would it be acceptable, then, based on the source, to make the conclusion that Palestinian Muslims are more likely to support suicide bombing than any other Muslim country or territory surveyed in the poll?


 * As an aside, the "synthesis" policy seems a bit strange. If source A says "All dogs eat meat," and source B says "all dogs are brown," why can't I link to both sources and say "all dogs eat meat and are brown?" 38.140.61.50 (talk) 18:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Lies
this document is full of lies and needs to have more background search — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.192.117.3 (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced claim in intro
I am removing this sentence from the intro: However the widespread involvement of Muslims in almost every Terrorist group is the reason for threat among the people, against the Muslims. It has no source, it's not grammatically correct, and I'm not 100% certain what it's meant to mean. However I'm quite certain that the claim that Muslims are involved in almost every terrorist group is not true, and this sentence was inserted by a new user who made no other edits, and I think they were just inserting their opinion. There are many terrorist groups that are focused around other ideologies, for example white supremacy and male supremacy. My sources for that are here and here. --24.108.52.222 (talk) 23:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The sentence you removed was clearly improper point of view pushing. Thanks for removing it. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia  talk  14:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Anjem Choudary
Anjem Choudary is an idiot. We shouldn't be giving WP:UNDUE attention to him in this article. This article is about "Muslim" attitudes and there are 1.6 billion of them.VR talk  06:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)