The subject of this article is
controversial and content may be in
dispute. When updating the article,
be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a
neutral point of view. Include
citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on
terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the
discussion and see a list of open tasks.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
If the image is
non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no
fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This particular page is a heinous crime against the religion Islam as it has referred to articles written after 2006 whereis the age of the religion is hundreds of years. The author mentioned it as Jihadism which has nothing to do with Islam although many Non-Islamic person are referring to this particular page when they put a finger towards Jihad and Islam which is explained only at another page of this website (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad). Not to mention that that this article also provides the impression that Islam itself is a religion of terrorism which is another falsification. Please do have an unbiased view towards Islam and put this page under a major proofreading.
Thanks in Advance
Hi! I'm new here, so I'm not sure I'm the best person to help with your issues, but, here goes... Proofreading and checking on Wikipedia is an ongoing process: we typically use newer sources than the original Quran, of course, because to write about anything Islamic using just the words of the Prophet would be biased, but Wikipedia is all about being unbiased and your views are an important part of that.
So... Could you be more specific as to which bits of the article upset or offend you, or give the impression that the piece is wrong? If you could make a list of places where you think the specific info is wrong, or where it needs sourcing, or where there's biased language, it would be a lot easier for more experienced editors than me to take a look. I also really appreciate you coming onto this noticeboard as a COI rather than just editing the post, when you feel strongly about it.
If you could make a list of the things that are in there (sentences/sources) that you feel are wrong or biased, then hopefully the working group can pick it up. At Wikipedia, we try and be neutral, so I'm not sure we'll get to anywhere where you're going to be happy, because a neutral POV is never going to please people who have strong opinions one way or the other -- but hopefully we can get to the point where you feel it's more fair, and not something that people with anti-Islamic views can point a finger at you for.
AdventurousMe (
talk)
16:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Closing request edit rationale: No actual conflict of interest is apparent, so this is not the best template. More specific info on what edits are desired should be set forth. –
S. Rich (
talk)
21:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)reply
Requested move
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Jihadism →
Jihadist extremism – As per the basics of
WP:AT that: "The title indicates what the article is about". The article on
Jihad explains that Jihad, in its full range of meanings, describes an Islamic struggle which doesn't necessarily involve weapons and the like. Furthermore conceptions, presented in the jihad article, of the
Distinction of "greater" and "lesser" jihad indicate greater jihad to be an internal struggle. Certainly a lot of focus is placed on lesser jihad especially during recent decades and yet it is also clear that this form of Jihad is very far from representative of the complete picture.
WP:CRITERIA, Consistency applies in relation to articles such as
Islamic extremism,
Islamic extremism in the United States and
Jihadist extremism in the United States. Other commonly used terms include "jihadist movement" (most commonly used), and "militant jihadism" but I think that "Jihadist extremism" most fully describes the topic.
Gregkaye✍♪17:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose. The proposed title would violate
WP:NPOV, and it would not "indicate what the article is about", since it would imply that the article only covered the most extreme form of the ideology known (rightly or wrongly) as "Jihadism" in English. In fact, the article does and should cover the entire spectrum of Jihadist ideology, and the title should make this clear.
209.211.131.181 (
talk)
20:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose "Jihadist extremism" is not a common phrase or subject. Jihadism is widely used by reliable sources. Often an "ism" is different from the concept without the "ism" so there should be no confusion.
Jason from nyc (
talk)
23:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
It is based on current code: '''Jihadism''' (also '''jihadist extremism''', '''jihadist movement''', '''jihadi movement''' or '''militant jihadism''') is commonly used in reference to aggressive interpretations of '''armed [[jihad]]''' in association with [[Islamic extremism|extremist]] interpretations of [[Islamic fundamentalism]].{{Citation needed|date=November 2014}}{{Clarify|Please clarify. Who uses it so? What does the extension 'in Islamic fundamentalism' mean: does armed jihad exist outside Islamic fundamentalism? And what other name than 'Jihadsism' does it get then there?|date=November 2014}}
The article on
Jihad states: In
Arabic, the word jihād is a noun meaning "struggle" or "resisting". Jihadism, however, is widely presented as being aggressive in character. I think that the difference between jihadism and jihad needs to be fairly presented.
"jihadist extremism", "militant jihadism", etc., I expect you can find these collocations in google, but they are clearly redundant and do not have the status of proper noun.
Or what is "non-militant jihadism" supposed to be? Same goes for "armed jihad" (I am aware of Sufi notions of non-armed jihad, but this is clearly not the topic here, and not the primary meaning of the term).
You can say "armed jihad" if you insist, but you shouldn't
boldface it as if it was anything other than you adding a redundant adjective.
If you want to "fairly" work out a difference between "jihad" and "jihadism", you need to look at how the terms are used.
Usage trumps etymology or literal meaning. "Jihad" is the more inclusive terms, covering all Islamic warfare going back to the 7th century. "Jihadism" otoh is very much a neologism and refers to warfare and terror attacks by Muslim non-state-actors (non-recognized states, I should say, as often call themselves "states" of course) characteristic of the time since the 2000s.
Look, the
jihad article keeps getting vandalised by people trying to (I assume, disingeniously) suggest that the Sufi meaning is somehow prevalent or primary. This is not the case, of course, but because of the perpetual "edit-jihadism" going on over there, you cannot possibly use the current revision of the page to support any kind of argument.
It isn't clear how "extremism" is different exactly from "fundamentalism". I realize the two terms have different etymologies and literal meanings, but you are going to have a really hard time drawing a de facto line between "Islamic extremism" and "Islamic fundamentalism". Fundamentalism in any ideology means that you are willing to go to extremes in pushing the fundamentals without compromise. Jihadism is just the contemporary term for Muslims organising in armed rebellion, combining the former terminological difference between "terrorism" and "mujahideen" guerilla outfits.
There used to be a time where, from a western perspective at least, you could draw some sort of line between mujahideen hiding in the hills, and terrorists blowing up targets in cities. This distinction has long gone, and the general concept of unleashing violence on any unbelievers or less-than-orthodox believers is now known as "jihadism", spanning hardcore tribal outfits in the NWFP to second generation urban wankers in London fantasizing about spilling the blood of the infidels.
--
dab(𒁳)15:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)reply
There seems to be an assumption that jihad is extremist. It is not, it is a fundamental obligation of all Muslim's. About that there is no dispute. The question then is what is Jihad. The best analysis seems to be that there are at least four stages of Jihad, two of which involve violence. However none of this can be called extremism.
Royalcourtier (
talk)
21:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)reply
First use and context of the term
We have claims that the term originates around 2000 in Indian/Pakistani media.
This is possible. The earliest English usage I can find dates to about 2003.
The claim that Kepel originated the term in French academia cannot be substantiated, he does use it in references to Jihadi outfits since the 1970s in his works, but I do not catch him using the word before 2007 or so. It's unlikely that his usage predates the journalistic one.
The term is picked up by French and English language media at about the same time, about 2003. Which makes of course perfect sense historically, as jihadism as a term for the contemporary fashion of waging Jihad by asymmetrical warfare arises in the wake of the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan 2001. The term is entirely coined to cover this phenomenon.
I note that the article seems to have been exposed to malicious editing since I last looked at it.
this is rather spectacular, a claim that a serious author proposed using the term "jihadism" to include "violent Buddhism". It turns out, of course, that the author did nothing of the kind and was just being misrepresented. Clearly, this page needs regular patrolling and close reference-checking. --
dab(𒁳)16:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)reply
I have added to this article, and a shorten version of it limited to who uses the term jihadism and what they mean would be appropriate, but as it stands this article seems more like a dumping ground for various jihads or self-proclaimed jihads by Muslim groups that could better be deleted or put in the
Jihad article. (For example the
history section)
BoogaLouie (
talk)
19:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Scope of the article? + Many problems
IMO the article as it stands now is deeply problematic. As I understand it, scholars use "jihadism" to refer to the ideology of the modern-day salafi/wahhabi insurgent and terrorist movements. As such, it is not clear why medieval conflicts like the Arab conquest of Persia, or a 16th century war in Tibet, or anti-colonial movements like Sudanese Mahdism should all be included under that header:
Qutbism and
Salafism hadn't yet been invented at the time. Are mainstream scholars seriously saying all these events are part of a single dynamic known as "jihadism"? As such, the article really lacks a sense of direction and scope.
Currently, this approach give the article the feel more of a polemical piece than an encyclopedic or scholarly one. As an aside, an article that places
Hezbollah,
Al Qaeda and the Algerian resistance to
French rule under the same banner is quite obviously problematic. On the other hand, the Saudi
Ikhwan, which is the actual source of the modern jihadist movement, doesn't even get any mention. (here's one piece by Karen Armstrong that can be used as good reference material for that story: [1], and another one from Alastair Crooke [2])
I understand this article is going to be particularly difficult, as the concept of "jihadism" is in the first place a construct invented by Western scholars, i.e. no one actually goes out and say "I believe in jihadism". Writing on the object of a construct is from the start a perilous exercise. For that reason, it is important to establish a clear definition of what we're talking about, then limit the scope of the article to what falls clearly under that definition.
It is also important to explore the difference between Jihadism and
Jihad in mainstream Islam, and discuss the specific details of the ideology itself.
Other specific problems in this article include:
- Bizarre out of place sentences (e.g. in the introduction: Overlooking much of the empty labeling and hearsay throughout this article, a reader might confidently assume that there is no evidence that every Muslim worldwide, today numbering in the billions, is a devout and continual practitioner of ijtihad.?);
- Questionable statements presented as fact: The Hindu Kush refers to a region in Northwest India and translates as the slaughter of the Hindus (see
Hindu Kush);
- The Fisabilillah armbands bit: is that such a central fact that it deserves its own sub-section? It could be used as a supporting anecdote when discussing the details of the ideology and how it relates to Islam;
- Citing precursors like the
Khawarij (good) and the
Assassins (highly debatable - the
Ismaili sect is a whole different animal) makes sense, but IMO a "Precursors movements" section would be better placed as an aside towards the end of the article rather than straight up in the "History" section, which is implying a kind of straight line/a direct legacy, contributing to the article's polemical feel (by the way, no jihadists today see themselves as the heir of the Khawarij - the Khawarij are reviled by all and different jihadist groups in fact constantly accuse one another of being Khawarij, e.g. the Syrian
Jaysh al-Islam against
ISIS);
- General lack of a coherent structure.
180.183.75.90 (
talk)
05:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Another editor has
proposed splitting the section "offensive jihad" into a separate article. Since that section originated from a merge discussion from that target, I think it should be discussed first. It also seems a bit of a
WP:POVFORK to me. Thoughts?
VQuakr (
talk)
02:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Support split or merge into
Jihad The term "jihadism" is a negative term which was coined in the 2000s and mostly used to cover Islamic insurgency and Islamic terrorism since that time which has nothing to do with offensive jihad because it is part of Islam since it's beginning. Anybody linking the term "jihadism" with the word Offensive Jihad clearly has a political agenda. Also
Defensive jihad has it's own article.
70.50.214.180 (
talk)
04:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Don't split, delete or merge into
Jihad after correcting policy violations. Although we might have a separate article on this topic in principle, the current content of this section doesn't have enough well-sourced material even for a stub. The definition at the top is unsourced (ref 18 is just for the terms dar al-Islam and dar al-harb). The middle of the section is classic
WP:SYNTH: taking a RS connecting the terms "offensive jihad" and fard kifaya, then taking a primary source, which could be classified under jihadism and uses the term fard kifaya, and then synthesizing all that into a discussion of offensive jihad in the context of jihadism. The last paragraph misrepresents the cited source. The source says that "jihad that is a collective duty" is "simplified in Western texts as an offensive jihad". It doesn't say that the two are "synonymous in classical Islamic law and tradition". If we want to do something with this material after fixing these violations, we should merge it into
Jihad, whose discussion of the offensive/defensive jihad distinction should be improved.
Eperoton (
talk)
14:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)reply
The articles
Jihadism and
Salafi jihadism have largely overlapping scope.
Salafi jihadism is much more developed and better sourced, but it is unnecessarily limited to sources which use the term "Salafi jihadism", which is commonly called simply "Jihadi/Jihadist/Jihadism", including in academic sources (e.g., The Oxford Handbook of Islam and Politics
[1], Oxford Bibliographies
[2], David Commins
[3]). In contrast, this article contains a lot of
WP:OR with anachronistic references to various phenomena of the past, not based on any references to "jihadism" in the citations. If this OR is trimmed, the rest will be basically an underdeveloped
WP:CFORK of
Salafi jihadism. Whatever "jihadism" there is which is not "Salafi" can be pointed out in the combined article.
Eperoton (
talk)
22:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)reply
strong oppose. A recent phenomenon of "Shia Jihadism" in Syria would make a merger ... well, ridiculous. All the evidence indicates Salafi jihadists strongly oppose Shia Islam and hitherto Sunni jihadists pretty much the term "jihadist" to themselves. No longer. While the term "Shia Jihadist" is much less commonly used than "Salafi jihadist", it is used.
weak oppose. After doing some research and finding little on jihadism that is not actually salafist-jihadi, I propose keep as a short article since there are some jihadis that do not come from salafist tradition. Merge some of it with jihad article, and other parts maybe into the salafist-jihadi article. --
BoogaLouie (
talk)
22:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Eperoton: IOW, most but not all of what Eperoton is suggesting. (One problem is Shia jihadism doesn't really make sense if you think of jihadis as setting up their own emir, doing their own fatwa declaring jihad and ignoring the "shiekhist ulama". If a Shi'i doesn't have a Marj they obey on religious matters they aren't much of a Shi'i.) --
BoogaLouie (
talk)
14:57, 15 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose for the same reasons I stated back in 2014. If two topics aren't the same, then they shouldn't be in the same article. I did review the entire discussion and that doesn't change the fundamental principle upon which I base my opposition.
MezzoMezzo (
talk)
03:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)reply
@
BoogaLouie: Hmm, I wonder if you have misread the proposed direction of the merge. Before I write more, could you either confirm that it wasn't the case or reread my original proposal and see if you still disagree? This article has been much improved by your recent additions, but it still seems like a content fork with
Salafi jihadism, where some sub-topics are now better covered here, while others are still better covered there.
Eperoton (
talk)
01:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)reply
@
BoogaLouie: Ok, I've read
MezzoMezzo's comment, whom I'm also pinging for additional insight. I'm in agreement as far as the merge into
Salafism was concerned. There we have a subsection called "Salafi jihadists", giving us a standard topic/subtopic relationship, and both those articles are reasonably well developed. The relationship of this article to
Salafi jihadism is more difficult. Although Salafi jihadism is conceptually a sub-category of jihadism, what we have here in practice are two terms which -- with the exception of some use for Shia militants, which we have determined to be fairly marginal, thanks to your research -- largely refer to the same phenomenon. In English, the term "Salafi jihadism" and related variants are used by some scholars and "national security" commentators. The majority of sources use the term "jihadism", which means that we can't properly use them in
Salafi jihadism without synth. This overlapping use also means that for almost every subsection in one article, we could have a subsection with the same title in the other, as is emblematic of content forks. Finally, this article remains underdeveloped compared to the other. Your proposal of trimming down this article would also address some of these concerns. I imagine we would merge parts of this article into
Salafi jihadism and what's left would be mostly an article about the term itself. Still, I don't see why it would be preferable to merging in the other direction, and I would like to better understand your objections.
Eperoton (
talk)
03:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)reply
I have just modified one external link on
Jihadism. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
The results from the largest statistical Muslim opinion poll ever made, interviewing 38000 Muslims in 39 different countries. Among other things, 84% of the population of Afghanistan want all "adulterers" to be stoned to death:
Then maybe you should filter out those, and then make a suggested edit, rather then expect us to wade through a wall of link most of which look irrelevant.
Slatersteven (
talk)
17:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Well, I have summarised the most relevant information for most of them, and the degree of support for jihadism in different countries, and similar statistics, definitely seem relevant.
David A (
talk)
17:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)reply
It is down to you to prove they have useful and informative information, not me. So what does the bill Gates article (for example) have to say about Islamism, why should it be included in the article? Also what relevance or value could be gained by pointing out that Jihadist have lots of websites, how does that information improve the article, as to the death penalty for certain crimes, that has nothing to do with Jihadism (for example China has the death penalty for Tax fraud as well as prostitution, silly laws are not the preserve of jihadism)? You need to make the case for inclusion (as well as what you want to include).
Slatersteven (
talk)
18:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)reply
As I mentioned in the other discussion, ideally Wikipedia editors should mainly be concerned about helping each other to spread information about the nature of reality, not to relentlessly argue against it as soon as it runs contrary to a personal agenda or belief system.
The Bill Gates article is just one of many, and should not serve as a convenient distraction, but given that jihadism is the by far most prevalent form of terrorism in the world today, once they start to efficiently use bioterrorism weapons, millions will likely die.
Death penalties for Atheism, Homosexuality, and Apostacy follow fundamentalist interpretations of Sharia law, mandated by the Quran and the Hadiths.
More importantly, I have a very hard time understanding how you can argue that actual statistics for the support of terrorist activity and actual active involvement in such organisations, is irrelevant in this context.
As I said in the other thread, this is why it would be best to discus one issue at a time...no one has the time to try and wade through a wall of links to find a nugget of gold. Again (going back to Gates, a nice illustration (by the way) of why small nuggets are better then lorry loads, we do not get distracted by one issue, are you aware that so far there have been no bio weapon attacks launched by MUSLIM terrorists?)). I agree, it is best now if we drop this. But I would hope you now come back with smaller and more concrete proposals.
Slatersteven (
talk)
07:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Well, it isn't like I just dumped the links without comment. I summarised the most important information for each of them, in order to make it quite easy to select whatever might be interesting.
As for the frequency of terrorism, I have read that there have been over 31000 Jihadist attacks in the world since September 11 2001, and that ISIS members been trying to develop bioweapons, so it seems to be only a matter of time, and I find the prospect terrifying.
David A (
talk)
07:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)reply
What you did not do is explain why it was relevant. This we will have to look at each source, determine if it is relevant, whether the source is RS, and what weight to give it. With one or two suggested edits this is fine, but not only is there a wall of "facts" to verify you also expect us to write the text to include. As to bio weapons, who were the last set of terrorists to use them?
Slatersteven (
talk)
08:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Thus looking at the one "factoid" We have to access whether the sources is RS (CNN, check), whether it in fact supports the text (Check), whether it is relevant to the article (fail, this article is not about terrorism). And we have to do this (and more if it gets past stage three) on each and every link you provided. And you are making an issue about this one (you think it should be included, based upon some synthases "most terrorists are Muslim so they are more likely to use bio weapons", the source does not support that statement), and again we will have to go through this for each of your links.
Slatersteven (
talk)
08:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)reply
It seems self-evident that the statistics of support for and involvement in terrorism activity are highly relevant for the issue. I do not expect you to include nearly everything, just to not automatically dismiss it all wholesale.
As for bioterrorism, it is still an irrelevant side-topic distracting from the rest, but by your logic we should not buy a car insurance based on the fact that we have not had any accidents yet. Analysis of probable future development is crucial. Regardless, I would much prefer that we leave the topic, and focus on the more relevant and tangible actual statistics.
David A (
talk)
08:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Please read our rules about OR and specifically synthases [[
[4]] [
[5]], so without knowing what you want the article to say I cannot view the inclusion of the Bill Gates article as anything other then a kind of Synthesis (fact A is true, fact B is true so we should write conclusion C).
Slatersteven (
talk)
08:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)reply
As I mentioned, I do not consider the Bill Gates article as nearly as relevant as the various statistics regarding the support for, and involvement in, terrorism in different countries. I would appreciate if we could switch to that topic instead. Thank you.
David A (
talk)
08:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)reply
No it does not, it shows they have a lot of web pages. To demonstrate the "enormity of their propaganda network" you have to have sources which discus that (and your text must reflect what the source says, and what you want to say), not just a random number about websites. Besides this is about ISIL, not jihadism.
Slatersteven (
talk)
13:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)reply
I provided links to other articles that go into the efficiency of their propaganda, including
this one, and the Islamic State is one of the world's two most dangerous jihadist organisations.
David A (
talk)
10:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Efficiency and enormity are not the same. This is why we need to know what you want to write, and what sources you want to use to write it.
Slatersteven (
talk)
10:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)reply
I am personally uncertain which parts that are academically appropriate to insert into the articles. I am good at finding a wide variety of sources for information. I am not skilled at sifting information (constant unfiltered information overload is one of the symtoms of my autism), or rewriting complicated Wikipedia articles in an appropriate manner, at least not with the extremely limited free time that I have available, due to managing one of the world's most popular entertainment wikis.
David A (
talk)
12:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC)reply
I think, perhaps, (and unless someone else wishes to help) this has more or less run it's course. I am sorry the user has difficulty writing material but I am unable to second guess what they want to try and include. Perhaps someone with more patience and understanding can offer to help, maybe with mentoring?
Slatersteven (
talk)
13:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Well, the statistics regarding the prevalence of Jihadism, and its support in different countries, seem like the most relevant to add to the article.
David A (
talk)
15:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC)reply
There are a lot of sources listed here which I don't have time to go through right now. At a glance, though, it looks like many of them do not explicitly discuss the topic of this article, which is jihadism. As the sources cited in our article explain, this term does not have a universally accepted definition, but people do use it with certain meanings, which are not equivalent to Islamism, terrorism, jihad, or other terms. At a minimum, the sources used in this article should make explicit that they are discussing jihadism. We can't make that inference ourselves, as it would violate
WP:SYNTH.
Eperoton (
talk)
16:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Well, as long as the articles cover statistics about the prevalence of Islamic terrorism activity, I think that it should be fine to include. Help to incorporate it into the article would be very appreciated.
David A (
talk)
16:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)reply
Jihadism and terrorism are only partially overlapping terms, and the extent of overlap depends on how particular authors use those terms. We have plenty of articles about terrorism. If the source explicitly refers to terrorism but not jihadism, it's more appropriate for those articles, where there's no risk of
WP:SYN.
Eperoton (
talk)
19:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)reply
I have just reverted
this. I don't really have much interest in the topic but the contributor has been engaging in
WP:OR elsewhere today, seemingly with a desire to
right great wrongs. I think such large changes will probably require discussion by people who are interested and actually have a decent background knowledge of this topic and its sources. -
Sitush (
talk)
18:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)reply
I check pages listed in
Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for
orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of
Jihadism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "oxfordislamicstudies.com":
From
Islam and modernity: Esposito, John L.
"Contemporary Islam". In John L. Esposito (ed.). The Oxford History of Islam. Oxford Islamic Studies Online. Retrieved 12 November 2014.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not.
AnomieBOT⚡11:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Unexplained removal of sourced sections and related categories
@
Shadowwarrior8: These are the sections with sourced content and reliable references that you had deliberately deleted from the article
without consensus (compare diffs, notice all the content that was deleted in the second one:
[6] and
[7]):
During the
Soviet-Afghan war in the 1980s, many Muslims received calls for a jihad against
atheists.[5] Mujahideen were recruited from various countries, including Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia.[6] The conflict gradually turned from one against occupation to one seen as a jihad.[7]
3. The Category:Religious terrorism was also removed without justification, despite the fact that this article is concerned with jihadism, which all the cited references define as a form of Islamic terrorism, therefore of religious terrorism.
You reverted my revert by claiming that you had simply deleted some original research (
[8]), but it's not true (compare diffs, notice all the content that was deleted in the second one:
[9] and
[10]). These two sections that I rewrote above are both well-sourced and the Category:Religious terrorism is definitely appropriate for this article. As everyone can see, none of those sections were tagged as original research, and there was no reason to delete any of this content.
Do you have any explanation for your
disruptive editing? I'm not against adding new content, the improvements that you made were fine, but there's no reason to delete sourced content with references simply because you don't like it or disregard those sections as unimportant, because that behavior qualifies as
disruptive editing. Please restore the sourced sections that you had previously deleted without justification, including the Category:Religious terrorism, to which jihadism belongs.
GenoV84 (
talk)
21:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)reply
@
GenoV84:
Have you actually taken the time to read the sources? Firstly, I am sure you're aware that this article has a long-standing Original Research template. So, it requires clean-up.
Secondly, note that I didnt remove any reference. All the references are still intact. Infact I improved some references. So thats a fact.
The content I removed was replaced due to it having no basis from these same sources. See
WP:OR
Absolutely zero basis in the source. This source ([9]) doesnt say any such thing. There's not even a mention of Shia Muslims there. Pure
Original Research. It had nothing to do with Sunni-Shia fighting. Which is why I moved the source to Against Ba'athism -> Syria sub-section and wrote "Al-Nusra Front was one of the largest Jihadist factions in the Syrian Civil War, and carried out large-scale attacks against the Ba'athist military and government officers during its insurgency between 2012 and 2016"[10] as clearly supported by the source.
2nd sentence: "Saudi Arabia backs the jihad against Shīʿa Muslims in Syria using
proxies"[11]
This too is is
WP:OR. The source doesnt say that Saudi Arabia backs anti-Shia Jihad in Syria. One relevant quote is that
But the Saudis are also bent on ousting Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, and his patron, Iran, which they see as a mortal enemy
So it neatly fits with the text I wrote: "Saudi Arabia also supported various Jihadist factions against the Assad regime, viewing the fight as part of its wider proxy conflict with Iran"[12]
3rd sentence: Didnt change it
So on the whole, the sub-section has NOTHING to do with any Anti-Shia sectarianism. It deals with political violence between various Regime and pro-Iran militants vs Sunni Jihadists. Hence, the sub-section title was changed appropriately to: Against Shīʿa Islamists
1st sentence: During the
Soviet-Afghan war in the 1980s, many Muslims received calls for a jihad against
atheists[13] Mujahideen were recruited from various countries, including Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia.[14]
Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, the Gulf shiekdoms, and others collaborated with the United States in facilitating – or at least theyturned a blind eye to – the recruitment and flow of young Muslims to wage jihad against the Russian occupiers. Their goals were to please their superpower patron, divert the threat of potential jihadis and mil�itants away from their own thrones, and capitalize on their support for jihad against Communist invaders to gain public legitimacy at home...Young Muslims were bombarded with calls to join in jihad against the atheist occupiers
How can this be reduced to a fight against atheists when this is clearly a political resistance to communist invasion of Afghanistan? And on top of that, you have links like "discrimination against atheists". Pure
Original Research.
Hence I removed it and wrote "During the
Soviet-Afghan war in the 1980s, Muslims across the World were encouraged by the
Gulf States,
Egypt, Pakistan,
Morocco,
Jordan and various pro-Western Arab nations for a jihad to defeat the
communist invaders in Afghanistan. The United States and allies supported Islamist revolutionaries to the defeat the threat posed by "godless
communism", supplying the
Afghan Mujahidin with money, equipment and training."[16]
Note: that I made a slight mistake in referencing the pages in that edit. I wrote 30-31 instead of 68-73. That was my mistake.
The Carter and Reagan administrations recognized the new possibilities for cooperation with Islamist activists and hoped to harness their religious and ideological fervor against communist expansionism. Because they were obsessed with the struggle against godless communism, American leaders were naturally inclined to flirt with and align their country with the soldiers of God in the Muslim world.
So my wording is in line with the source. The previous text was
WP:OR
2nd sentence: "Mujahideen were recruited from various countries, including Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia.[18]
Didnt change it
3rd sentence: "The conflict gradually turned from one against occupation to one seen as a jihad'".[19]
I simply improved that sentence with more details and an additional reference: "Following the overthrowal of the communist regime and dissolution of U.S.S.R, many foreign Jihadists that coalesced under the transnational networks of Al-Qaeda organisation began viewing their struggle as part of a "Global Jihad", eventually pitting them towards a collision course with the United States in the 1990s."[20][21]
However, by the end of the 1990s, a dramatic change had occurred within the jihadi movement: from localism to globalism. The underlying context behind this momentous change included: (1) the withdrawal of Russian troops from Afghanistan and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union; (2) the 1991 Gulf war and the permanent stationing of American forces in Saudi Arabia; and (3) the defeat of religious ationalists on their home turf by the end of the 1990s. A paradigmatic shift among a tiny segment of jihadis gave birth to a new breed of transnationalist jihadis led by Al Qaeda.
So conclusion: The sources refer only to a fight against communism and this sub-section must be named as such.
If you want a seperate sub-section for Jihadist fight against atheism, you need to bring in additional sources to cite.
3. As for the category removal, that may be discussed after the first two
Content disputes are
Resolved.
In the meantime, I am going to restore the rest of my edits.
@
Shadowwarrior8: Feel free to do it. As I said, I'm not against adding new content, and I didn't write those sections anyway. They were in the article years before I ever came across it, but thanks for explaining what the changes were about. I didn't notice the change of page numbers to that reference but it's fine. Overall, I agree with the improvements that you were referring to regarding those sections mentioned above, but I still find the removal of Category:Religious terrorism to be unreasonable and unnecessary, since "jihadism" is classified and defined by the main references cited in the article as a form of
Islamic extremism and
terrorism, therefore of
religious terrorism. Which means that this category is supposed to be here, obviously.
GenoV84 (
talk)
23:44, 29 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Regarding the removal of "Religious Terrorism" from the category, before I proceed to explain, its very important to note that the charge of "terrorism" is a lofty charge, with real-world consequences. One must not use that term lightly or hastily. So, coming to the content:
Firstly, the sources in the lede doesnt equate Jihadism with terrorism.
So a sentence in the lede states regarding the usage of term "Jihadism" in massmedia and secular academia: "Since then, it has been applied to various
insurgentIslamic extremist,
militantIslamist, and
terrorist individuals and organizations whose ideologies are based on the
Islamic notion of jihad'."[23][24][25][26]
Technically correct Various terrorist groups have been "labelled" Jihadist in Western media and academia. But they do not "define" Jihadism as terrorism, or equate Jihadism with terrorism
Sources:
i) This source ([23]) doesnt discussing specifically about ISIS in the cited pages but even then it doesnt use the word "terrorism", even though ISIS is ofcourse a death-cult. Interestingly the source says in footnote 8 in page 506 regarding the danger of hasty categorisations:
This type of hostile othering and categorizing is similar to that used in the occasionally racist labelling of perceived enemies as terrorists, jihadists, extremists, Mohammedans, Islamists, hajjis, camel jockeys, and so on.
ii) This source ([24]) is freely accessible online, you can check. It is talking about the Islamic concept of Jihad not the ideology of Jihadism. And even then, the word "terrorism" is no where used.
iii) This source ([25]) also doesnt mention the term "Jihadism" and the one place it mentions "terrorism", it is specifically attributed to ISIS:
The Prophet’s instructions to his followers to obey their rulers have been turned on their head by Dae’sh’s call for “true” believers to disobey their Muslim leaders and launch military jihads. They do not treat jihad as a religious or spiritual concept in the sense that the Prophet did, but as a device with which they can call for and justify the killing of unbelievers and even fellow Muslims, even though they do not class those Muslims living beyond Dae‘sh occupied countries as true believers anyway. These Islamic concepts have thus been dangerously re-interpreted by modern extremist groups. They do not use hijra as a means to secure the survival of new Islamic communities, as the Prophet did, but in violent attempts to conquer non-Islamic territory or establish a new Islamic state. As with hijra, jihad is also being used to encourage terrorism. This bears no relationship to the Prophet’s original intention or understanding of the term. In his era, the terms hijra and jihad were simply related to religious obligations, but Dae‘sh use both to encourage and justify murder and war.
iv) This source ([26]) also neither mention the term "Jihadism" or "terrorism" in the cited pages.
v) These sources ([27][28]) also do not equate Jihadism with terrorism or define Jihadism as part of terrorism.
Finally, moving beyond the sources. What do you mean by terrorism??
Generally, there are 2 exisiting widespread defintions.
Use of violence against the state and state-actors to achieve political or religious aims
or
Use of violence specifically directed against civilians, women, children, etc to achieve political or religious aims
In the academia, currently the latter one is dominant. But various governments across the world employ the first definition to designate groups or individuals as "terrorist".
Now depending on which side of the aisle you are, your categorisation of Jihadism will be influenced by that view.
"Jihadism" is obviously a movement with explicit military aims. It aims to overthrow states and state-affiliated entities through violence. Many other revolutionary ideologies use the same strategy as well.
I dont view that itself as "terrorism", since I go with the second, more
Neutral definition.
While groups like ISIS obviously use violence specifically against "civilians, women, children, etc" many Jihadist organisations do not have this policy. So it would be a fatal error to not see that distinction.
Shadowwarrior8 (
talk)
06:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Shadowwarrior8:Terrorism comprises both of the definitions that you quoted; to me, it means both of them. Moreover, there is no universally accepted definition of the term "terrorism" among scholars and academics of political science:
The discipline of terrorism research is relatively young and has likewise no generally accepted academic definition for terrorism. The word terror comes from the
Latin word terrere, which means to frighten or scare. The concept of terrorism goes back to the 19th century. Terrorism as a political-military strategy has existed for about 40 years. The recent combination with the
globalmass media has allowed terrorism to reach a
global dimension. In this paper, terrorism is defined as
political violence in an asymmetrical conflict that is designed to induce terror and psychic fear (sometimes indiscriminate) through the violent victimization and destruction of noncombatant targets (sometimes iconic symbols). Such acts are meant to send a message from an illicit clandestine organization. The purpose of terrorism is to exploit the media in order to achieve maximum attainable publicity as an amplifying force multiplier in order to influence the targeted audience(s), in order to reach short- and midterm political goals and/or desired long-term end states.[29]
As you can see, the main references cited in the article refer to "jihadism" otherwise using the terms "jihadist terrorism" and "Islamist terrorism".[23][30][31][24][25][26][32][33][34][35][36][37][38] Several other
reliable sources can be found on the Internet which state the same thing and use the same terminology referring to jihadism and Islamic terrorism, which are both forms of extremist militancy, political violence, and religious terrorism based on the Islamic ideology.[23][30][31][25][32][33][35][36][39][40][41]
Terrorism, as a highly complex phenomenon, stands at the forefront of national and international agendas. Although terrorism has a variety of different forms in terms of its association with various secular and religious groups, Jihadi Terrorism (
Jihadism) is considered as one of its most dangerous forms threatening the world. Jihadi terrorism is a consequence of integrating Islamic ideology with the idea of
jihad in a sense that extreme interpretation of
Islamic texts contributes to the rise of violent jihad. As long as Islamic texts are entirely open to a variety of interpretations, jihadi terrorists (jihadists) take full advantage of this flexibility to justify their act of violence against combatants and non-combatants. As such, the act of violence by jihadists is mostly justified under the banner of defending Islam, preserving the rule of Allah, and creating a worldwide Islamic fundamentalist state, the Caliphate.[40]
Well the problem is, not all Jihadist groups use this strategy you described. (violent victimization and destruction of noncombatant targets (sometimes iconic symbols)). All Jihadist groups agree on waging a armed insurgencies against governments they oppose, because that's what Jihadism is about. But they differ a lot on the tactics they seek to employ.
Some of the sources you quoted here already been discussed above, and the rest of these sources are talking mainly about IS, which ofcourse employs terrorist tactics indiscriminately.
The category of "religious terrorism" belongs to specific groups and orgs that involve itself in acts of terror, not an ideology unless.. propogation of terrorism is fundamental to that ideology
If you are unaware, Jihad in traditional Islamic law explicitly prohibits the killing of women, children, innocent non-combatants and various other categories during warfare. Islamic legal scholars and jurists have written law manuals on rules of warfare over the past millenium. See
Islamic military jurisprudence and
Rules of warfare. So Jihad is not terrorism, infact it is against terrorism (in the traditional Islamic sense)
Most Jihadist groups generally stick by these traditional principles. It is a minority of Jihadist groups that engage in these tactics, because they refuse to abide by the Islamic scholarship (Ulemah); instead taking the law into its own hands. So you cant generalise Jihadist groups, especially since terrorism is opposed by the mainstream interpretation of
Jihadism.
The ideology of Nazism isnt included in the category of "Far-right terrorism", and its a known ideology that engage in terror tactics and infact terrorism is fundamental to Nazi ideology. This is an example of
SYSTEMIC BIAS within wikipedia.
We are talking about jihadist and Islamic terrorism based on Islamic texts and their interpretations here, not Neo-Nazi terrorism; they are two different extremist ideologies and politically-motivated terrorist networks, the former is
religious and the latter
secular. I already know the difference between jihadist and Islamic terrorism and the traditional understanding of jihad among Islamic scholars;
the difference is thoroughly discussed in the main article.[33] The cited academic references in this article state exactly the opposite of what you claim,[23][30][31][25][32][33][35][36] considering that jihadist terrorist militants and organizations attack non-combatant civilians[29][23][30][31][25][32][33][35][36][40] (
mostly other Muslims, which are the main victims of jihadist and Islamic terrorism worldwide) and these terrorist groups fight against each other as well, not only against the governments as you claimed.[29][23][30][31][25][32][33][35][36][40] I don't care about the alleged bias within Wikipedia, and if you think that Wikipedia is biased, why are you here in the first place? Your reasoning doesn't make any sense to me, and
the reliable references cited in the article and the new ones that I provided here explicitly refer to "jihadism" as a form of Islamic extremism and religious terrorism, to the point where terms "Islamic terrorism", "Islamist extremism", "jihadism", "jihadist terrorism", and "jihadist violence" are often used interchangeably.[29][23][30][31][25][32][33][35][36][40] Therefore, the Category:Religious terrorism is closely related to this article and highly relevant for it. It definitely needs to stay here and there's no good reason to remove it because you dislike it. Sorry, but
that's not the way Wikipedia works.
GenoV84 (
talk)
12:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)reply
While jihadism is certainly extremism, I would encourage caution in implying that it is always necessarily terrorism. Whether or not groups and their actions are characterized as terrorist will always be case-by-case.
Iskandar323 (
talk)
12:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I don't know of any jihadist group or organization that doesn't engage in political violence and/or terrorist activities... they are not spending their time together picking daisies in the countryside, that's for sure. Several of the
terrorist plots and attacks (including the
ones that failed in the U.S.) that occured during the first half of the 21st century
have been planned and perpetrated by Islamic terrorist groups and organizations which more or less believe that jihad is a fundamental tenet of their ideological worldview. Some of these Islamic terrorist groups label themselves by explicitly using the terms "jihad" or "jihadist", others do not, but they all agree that their militant struggle against other Muslims, non-state actors, non-combatant civilians, armies and governments is based on jihad.
GenoV84 (
talk)
13:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Well, there's a really obvious example for this: the Taliban. When they fought the Soviets, they may have been 'terrorists' to the Russians, but the West, while supporting them, treated them as 'freedom fighters'. Then they became the 'terrorists' again when they were insurgents, but now they are back in government, and they are not, because governments don't call other governments that, as that's no diplomacy and in any case they all have their secrets, grey sites, etc. The resounding point being that 'terrorist' is always an incredibly subjective, context-specific label, hence
WP:TERRORIST.
Iskandar323 (
talk)
14:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Sources using "jihadist terrorism" as a set phrase are not obviously equating jihadism with terrorism; they may simply be using the compound term to mean terrorism as performed by jihadists. That is certainly the usage in the first source. The third source isn't focused on terror. The fifth is about jihad. The last defines the term in the way you have mentioned, but that is one think tank. That's me just sampling some of the sources I could access. Based on the above, I don't see any particularly consistent usage in the sources. Maybe several sources use the term in that way, but it's certainly not all or even clearly most of them, and if
WP:NPOV requires us to be neutral with respect to all reliable sources, we can't just go along with the definition of what several sources, and especially not just US think tanks, suggest.
Iskandar323 (
talk)
16:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Also, focus on the content, not the editor. Our friend here may be a little left-field on some subjects, and we've quibbled on a few things, but actually, a little diversity among our editors is good. Wikipedia is of course known for having several forms of
WP:BIAS; this is only to be expected. It is obviously Western-academia and anglophone-centric. It is what it is. I don't have any particular point to make on the subject here, but it worth keeping an open mind to the idea that the presentation of certain subjects may have at this point have been warped by several decades of both unconscious bias, and, quite often on thorny Islam topics, the intentional framing of subjects from certain POVs.
Iskandar323 (
talk)
16:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Dear @
Iskandar323:, I have no reason to attack anyone, and I didn't do so to neither of you two. I've focused on content and references since the very beginning of this discussion, not on the parties involved. I agreed with shadowarrior about the improvements and addition of new content to the article. I tried to explain my perplexities to you and shadowarrior regarding the removal of the Category:Religious terrorism, I heard the counter-arguments, and I find some of them to be unconvincing.
Firstly, the bias isnt "alleged". It is acknowledged. "the encyclopedia fails in this goal (of NPOV) because of systemic bias created by the editing community's narrow social and cultural demographic"
WP:BIAS
You over-represent studies related to ISIS and conflate it with Jihadism. And you quote low level references on online websites.
But you fail to analyse the overall picture of Jihadism. Based on more authentic reliable, academic studies which give more nuanced views.
jihadism is a military movement rooted in the long history of Islam that has been subject to much internal debate among Muslims... It is important not to conflate jihadism (defining the cause of the fight) with terrorism (defining the methods of the fight), although they can overlap. As Hegghammer (2010: 55) argues, even though some jihadists join terrorist organizations and use terror tactics, most “do not blow up planes but use paramilitary tactics in confined theaters of war.”
"It definitely needs to stay here and there's no good reason to remove it because you dislike it." I already gave good reasons, not my personal opinions and remember that
MOS:TERRORIST is controversial and inflammatory.
Shadowwarrior8 (
talk)
13:03, 30 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Terrorism is a political and military strategy, I already know about that. The quote that you mentioned doesn't state that "jihadism" is a secular or non-religious form of terrorism, it simply draws a difference between ideology itself and the military struggle promoted by the aforementioned ideology, but that doesn't make jihadists benevolent partisans and philantropists with humanistic views towards the poor and needy.... quite the opposite. I suggest you to adopt a
more neutral point of view regarding the subject of this article, because your reasoning so far seems to be quite
biased and in favor of jihadists as good people who are doing their own thing and want to be left alone, instead of planning terrorist attacks and killing other Muslims and non-combatant civilians everywhere (primarily in the
Middle East).[29][23][30][31][25][32][33][35][36][40]
Your sources are allegedly more authentic according to whom? Nobody. That's just your opinion, not an expert's opinion. The
several academic references that I provided are reliable and you should check them. Jihadism is classified as a form of Islamic terrorism and/or religious terrorism based on Islamic texts and teachings by several academics and scholars of political science cited throughout the article; stop denying the sourced informations from the cited references as if these informations don't even exist.[29][23][30][31][25][32][33][35][36][40] The Category:Religious terrorism is definitely appropriate and relevant for this article, and should stay here.
GenoV84 (
talk)
13:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)reply
"your reasonsing so far seem to be quite biased and in favor of jihadists as good people who are doing their own thing and want to be left alone, instead of planning terrorist attacks and killing civilians everywhere (primarily in the Middle East)" --> that's quite a big
Personal attack and a violation of
Assumimg Good Faith. These Discussions are not about external events or any political situation, but just this article. Despite our differences, kindly
focus on the content.
The source I quoted explicitly stated: It is important not to conflate jihadism with terrorism. If you have sources supporting your framing of "Jihadism as a form of religious terrorism" quote the exact texts here in the talk page to back it up.
Or I am open to a
compromise solution with categories titled "Religious Militancy" and "Islamic Militancy". This is because Jihadism is an inherently militaristic movement. But not all militant movements engage in terror attacks on civilians, women and children as an ideological or strategic policy.
I didn't attack anyone, please
cool down. I was just explaining the reason for which I disagree with your arguments for removal of the Category:Religious terrorism, suggesting you to check the cited references, and be more neutral regarding the topic of this article, nothing more than that. As for the exact texts, I already quoted one source in the previous replies:
Terrorism, as a highly complex phenomenon, stands at the forefront of national and international agendas. Although terrorism has a variety of different forms in terms of its association with various secular and religious groups, Jihadi Terrorism (
Jihadism) is considered as one of its most dangerous forms threatening the world. Jihadi terrorism is a consequence of integrating Islamic ideology with the idea of
jihad in a sense that extreme interpretation of
Islamic texts contributes to the rise of violent jihad. As long as Islamic texts are entirely open to a variety of interpretations, jihadi terrorists (jihadists) take full advantage of this flexibility to justify their act of violence against combatants and non-combatants. As such, the act of violence by jihadists is mostly justified under the banner of defending Islam, preserving the rule of Allah, and creating a worldwide Islamic fundamentalist state, the Caliphate.[40]
Here's another quote:
Jihad terrorism is ostensibly motivated by an
extreme interpretation of Islam. The use of violence is regarded by its practitioners as a divine duty or sacramental act (
EUROPOL 2007). The Jihad terrorists’ self-proclaimed goal is to reinvigorate the
Islamic Ummah and to mobilize the Muslim community in a revolutionary transformation of the
Muslim world population in confrontation with the international order spearheaded by Western society. They strive toward the creation of a new world wide
Islamic caliphate, which jihad terrorists widely consider the ideal Islamic form of government representing the political unity and leadership of the Muslim world. These goals and underlying root causes are the factors and circumstances that drive the jihad terrorists. [...] In the short term, the jihadist terrorists aim for an enlargement of their supportive patronage. Therefore, the persuasion of the receptive Muslim audience via the heightening of an Islamic identity in confrontation with the West is one of their goals. This includes the wakening of the Muslim population by luring the U.S. into conflicts on the
Arabian Peninsula in order to be able to engage the enemy directly. The terrorists need Western troops and their military action in the Muslim world to implement their
media strategy. The presence of troops and their actions produce the desired graphic footage of western “occupation of the Islamic nations” that furthers their media-centered strategy. It thrives on images and words about every innocent civilian killed by Western bombs transmitted via
television and
Internet, producing intense antipathy towards the West. Building on this, the terrorists can more effectively call for the end of foreign influence in Muslim countries. [...] In the mid-term, goals include the removal of all political leaders who currently govern
secular Muslim states and the elimination of the
State of Israel. The terrorists' aim is to install supportive Islamic regimes and transform from a decentralized network organization to a massive Islamic movement that strives toward their desired end state.[29]
The creation of the categories that you suggested seems trivial to me, considering that the categories Guerrilla organizations, Irregular military, Islamic extremism, Islamic terrorism, Islamist insurgent groups, Organizations designated as terrorist, Paramilitary organizations, Rebel militia groups, and Violent non-state actors already exist on Wikipedia. I mean, you can still create the categories Islamic militancy and Religious militancy if you want, but they sound too generalist and unclear to me (the word militancy has a vague meaning, anyone who believes in a certain idea and acts upon it could be considered a militant);
Dietrich Bonhoeffer and other
pacifist Christians could be categorized under the label Religious militancy as well along with
al-Qaeda and
ISIS, it doesn't make any sense to me.
Sufis and
Muslim Feminists could be categorized under the label Islamic militancy as well. I want to make clear that I mean no offence to you, but your proposal to replace the Category:Religious terrorism with those that you suggested to create
looks like an attempt to some kind of whitewashing or "glossing over" in order to delete any categorization of terrorism from the article, despite the fact that the aforementioned reliable references refer to jihadism as "jihadist terrorism",[29][23][30][31][25][32][33][35][36][40] and further classify jihadism as a form of Islamic extremism and religious terrorism.[29][23][30][31][25][32][33][35][36][40]GenoV84 (
talk)
15:14, 30 January 2023 (UTC)reply
So, I am a little late. I dont have the time to engage deeply with digging up academic sources, since I plan to take a break. I think it has become pointless anyway since the discussion is not going anywhere.
Regarding your reply:
([40])
Diplomatic Courier is a DC-based foreign policy think-tank and this citation from the source ([29]) hasnt equated Jihadism with terrorism. As for rest of the sources, you just refbombed them without giving any citations. Also, the issue wasnt about "al-Qaeda and ISIS" which is entirely another topic, the topic was about Jihadism, not Jihadist organisations. Additionally, there are plenty of Jihadist organisations not part of the AQ or ISIS franchises. (You can verify that from the Category:Jihadist groups and its sub-categories)
But I noticed that you gave a citation from this academic source ([42]) in one of your replies in the discussion to back up your stance. Perhaps you should have brought such academic citations far more earlier.
The discussion has gotten very lengthy and probably debates regarding
MOS:TERRORISM are more broader and hence would take a public community process. I will just end my participation here by stating that the
"Terror" Label is a highly contentious, inflammatory label. And I'm out.
Shadowwarrior8 (
talk)
06:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I think the key point here is that jihad-ism is a
neologism that, while obviously based on the word jihad is a bit more adrift from it in terms of meaning. Jihadist doesn't simply mean someone who engages in jihad (in any of its various forms); jihadist is a term coined in the 1990s, and popularized since 9/11, specifically to refer to militant, implicitly violent Islamist groups. Jihadism does not just equal Islamists engaged in any form of struggle, non-violent or otherwise; by this point the "mainstream interpretation of jihadism" has, for better or worse, at least in the English language, become more or less inextricably bound up with the idea of violence.
Iskandar323 (
talk)
12:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)reply
@
GenoV84: I have to say, I think you're barking up the wrong tree a bit here. I've reviewed all of those 10 sources that you keep posting and only the last one, the diplomatic courier, directly equates jihadism and jihadi terror, and as I mentioned in an earlier post, that is not even a particularly fantastic source: it is just a think tank. On the other and, the Nilsson source quoted above is spot on: It is important not to conflate jihadism (defining the cause of the fight) with terrorism (defining the methods of the fight), although they can overlap. As Hegghammer (2010: 55) argues, even though some jihadists join terrorist organizations and use terror tactics, most “do not blow up planes but use paramilitary tactics in confined theaters of war.” - this from an academic published by an academic publisher. However, I hope this entire discussion isn't about a category, because if it is, it's a bit of a moot point. A category does not define an article, it merely provides an indication of a topic scope that overlaps with the subject, and, yes, there is overlap here with religious terrorism. This would only really cease to be the case if 'jihadi terrorism' specifically was split into a child article, but I think we're a little way off that.
Iskandar323 (
talk)
19:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)reply
To be clear, I do not care about the category at all, one way or another, although I think it is perfectly fine if it stays given the obvious overlap in material. What I object to, and I why I am weighing in here is the assertion that jihadism = jihadi terrorism, which is erroneous. Perhaps it was just a rhetoric in this category fight, but if so, it's too fast and loose.
Iskandar323 (
talk)
19:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Finally, suggesting that other editors are just in it to right great wrongs, i.e.
WP:RGW (a part of
WP:TEND), is, while short of a personal attack, certainly not assuming good faith ... so something to take care with.
Iskandar323 (
talk)
19:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)reply
That's the way in which I perceived your suggestions and those of shadowarrior regarding the removal of that category, they simply don't make sense to me and I find them questionable, but we are all here trying to improve the article in good faith. Having said that, to me it looks like almost the entire discussion was about keeping or removing that one category, and the reason for discussing about it was that another editor single-handedly decided to delete it
without consensus. I understood what Hegghammer and Nilson state about the difference between terrorists and paramilitary tactics, similar arguments regarding military struggle and guerrilla strategies can be found in the sources that I quoted above as well.[29][40] Regarding the assertion about jihadism and jihadist terrorism, I stated that several of these sources use both terms interchangeably ([29][23][30][31][25][32][33][35][36][40]), but on the other side, other sources (such as Hegghammer, which you have quoted before) remark that "jihadism" and "jihadist terrorism" are not the same thing. However, as you said: yes, there is overlap here with religious terrorism., which is also recognized by several of the cited references in the article. Therefore we can agree that the category should stay here and move on.
GenoV84 (
talk)
19:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)reply
@
GenoV84: Yes, I think that is actually besides the point here with regards to the category inclusion, because as I've said, I think that there is enough overlap that it should stay. But as I mentioned, I checked all of those sources, and very few of them actually use these terms interchangeably at all, and I don't think your approach of trying to win this discussion by generalizing about 10 fairly disparate sources is an intellectually rigorous or meritorious one. A single, well-selected quote from a respectable source goes a lot further than a citebombed wall of text (like we have above).
Iskandar323 (
talk)
20:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)reply
The role that religion plays in the motivation of “
religious terrorism” is the subject of much ongoing dispute, even in the case of
jihadist groups. Some scholars, for differing reasons, deny that it has any role; others acknowledge the religious character of jihadism in particular, but subtly discount the role of religion, while favoring other explanations for this form of
terrorism.[42]
As everyone can see, this
academic, reliable reference that I just provided explicitly states that jihadism is a form of terrorism; it also acknowledges that some scholars deny that religion has any role in the jihadist movement, while others recognize the religious character of jihadism. In any case, whether religious or secular, this academic source clearly refers to jihadism as a "form of terrorism". Enough said.
GenoV84 (
talk)
22:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)reply
That's fine. I didn't say there were no sources. I simply said it was far from the only view and certainly not obviously the majoritarian view. There are many nuanced perspectives on this.
Iskandar323 (
talk)
07:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Shadowwarrior8: My personal advice here would be to let the category issue lie. Religious terrorism does overlap with this subject, and continuing to argue about it is only going to waste your time. I would go back to focusing on the more productive activity you were already engaged in, which was adding new material to the actual page.
Iskandar323 (
talk)
19:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)reply
My personal opinion is that we must differentiate between
Jihad in Islam, and between jihadist militant groups, such as Da'ish/ISIS for example, who are the main source of terrorism, as indicated by many sources above. So somehow, I agree with
GenoV84. Peace.--
TheEagle107 (
talk)
20:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC)reply
^The Far Enemy: Why Jihad Went Global – Page 68, Fawaz A. Gerges – 2009 -
^Aging Early: Collapse of the Oasis of Liberties – Page 47, Mirza Aman – 2009
^A. Gerges, Fawaz (2009). "Introduction: The Road to September 11 and After". The Far Enemy: Why Jihad Went Global. The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 8RU, UK: Cambridge University Press. p. 68.
ISBN978-0-521-51935-9.{{
cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (
link)
^A. Gerges, Fawaz (2009). "Introduction: The Road to September 11 and After". The Far Enemy: Why Jihad Went Global. The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 8RU, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. 68–73.
ISBN978-0-521-51935-9.{{
cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (
link)
^A. Gerges, Fawaz (2009). "Introduction: The Road to September 11 and After". The Far Enemy: Why Jihad Went Global. The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 8RU, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. 68–73.
ISBN978-0-521-51935-9.{{
cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (
link)
^Aging Early: Collapse of the Oasis of Liberties – Page 47, Mirza Aman – 2009
^A. Gerges, Fawaz (2009). "Introduction: The Road to September 11 and After". The Far Enemy: Why Jihad Went Global. The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 8RU, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. 30–31.
ISBN978-0-521-51935-9.{{
cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (
link)
^A. Gerges, Fawaz (2009). "Introduction: The Road to September 11 and After". The Far Enemy: Why Jihad Went Global. The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 8RU, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. 30–31.
ISBN978-0-521-51935-9.{{
cite book}}: CS1 maint: location (
link)
^Vidino, Lorenzo; Carenzi, Silvia (2018).
"Terrorist Attacks. Youngsters and Jihadism in Europe"(PDF). IEMed Mediterranean Yearbook. European Institute of the Mediterranean. pp. 76–81.
Archived(PDF) from the original on 11 January 2023. Retrieved 30 January 2023.
@GenoV84 the reason for the rephrasing was not to change the meaning of the sentence. It was to put the Muslim perspective first because it’s an Islamic concept, and the western perspective is an outside view. It was just to make the sentence more logical
Alexanderkowal (
talk)
10:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Against the West
I feel this is a section that is really missing from this article. The best sources are going to be on Global Jihadism, however I've listed some below that are solely on the West. I realise this is an incredibly daunting task for anyone as it would need to very carefully written.
[11]: Western Jihadism: A Thirty Year History (2021)
[12]: Jihad in the West: The Rise of Militant Salafism (2011)
[13]: Jihadism in Western Europe After the Invasion of Iraq: Tracing Motivational Influences from the Iraq War on Jihadist Terrorism in Western Europe (2006)