Jump to content

Talk:Islamic terrorism/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Islamic terrorism

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 01:15, 15 February 2018 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) from Talk:Islamic terrorism) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

The part about the capture of Shalit

This was added by ShulMaven (talk · contribs) in the section "Kidnapping as Psychological warfare":

According to psychologist Irwin Mansdorf, Hamas demonstrated effectiveness of kidnapping as a form of psychological warfare in the 2006 peacetime kidnapping of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit when public pressure forced the government of Israel to release 1027 prisonsers, including 280 convicted of terrorism by Israel, in exchange for his release.

This was from the article Hamas uses kidnapping as a strategic tool by Deutsche Welle. Mansdorf says "However, Mansdorf says, the public identification with Shalit effected the necessary political pressure" and Mansdorf says Hamas is pointedly using kidnapping as a means of psychological warfare to generate this effect" but there is nothing about "Hamas demonstrated effectiveness of kidnapping as a form of psychological warfare".

Deutsche Welle also write "There are also signs that Hamas wants to kidnap Israelis to use as bargaining chips in negotiations later".

Secondly, it is not neutral to say that the Israeli solider Gilad Shalit was "kidnapped" instead of "captured". But what is much worse is the word before. Which "peacetime"? There had been a conflict before that, which can be read about in for example in 2006 Gaza cross-border raid#Background. --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 26 March 2015

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.

The result of the move request was: Not moved No compelling consensus to move this title. Repeatedly subjecting this article to RMs is unlikely to develop any new consensus. I endorse the infinite move protection the article currently has and would encourage no further RMs for at least 1 year. Mike Cline (talk) 21:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


Islamic terrorism → Islamist terrorism – Clarify the distinction between Islamic faith, civilization, people, and the ideology of Islamism that inspires this variety of terrorism. (parallel discussion at Talk:List of Islamic terrorist attacks) --Relisted. Steel1943 (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC) E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment: "Islamist terrorism" is not COMMONNAME. Khestwol (talk) 17:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
In searches:
site:http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/ "Islamist terrorism" got "45 results" while
site:http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/ "Islamic terrorism" got "1 result".
That one result was in a quote from musician Salman Ahmad of Pakistani rock band Junoon, I guess this may not one of their more high brow interviews, who was quoted as saying, "I also think there’s a failure in the media to research about the conflict, instead opting to present it as general Islamic terrorism."
Of course a presentation of "Islamic terrorism" is unrepresentative as the terrorism is specifically an issue of Political Islam aka. Islamism.
Many scholars make reference to "Islamist terrorism" GregKaye 18:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Neutral - I won't participate or close the discussion, but I would have strongly suggested making this a multi-move (i.e., one move discussion on one page). Red Slash 21:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment Haven't made up my mind yet, but I wanted to hear responses to this; yes, the term "Islamic terrorism" in and of itself seems like a slight NPOV violation. BUT, we have a number of terrorism related pages on WP, and many have no specific ideology associated with them; they are named after something about the perpetrators; ie state-terrorism, and whatnot. In each of those cases, the term is broader than the phenomenon; obviously "state terrorism" is not a function of being a state, it is speficic attributes of the state. I know, OTHERSTUFF; but we do need a standard of some kind, no? So how do we go about naming terrorism related pages? Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I would be most eager to find any way to move the article Christian terrorism from that insane, Oxymoronic title. It is madness to think that there can be a Christian form of terrorism and feel certain sadness that the term "Christianist terrorism" hasn't been used prevalently. Even as an agnostic I'd say that any word starting "Christi.." is inappropriate to link to terrorism and, if any way can be found to move this article, it should be taken. GregKaye 21:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, perhaps. I guess what I was getting at was Wikipedia seems to be using "Islamic terrorism" to mean "Terrorism committed by Muslims." As long as that is consistant, and as long as the fact that not all Muslims are terrorists is thoroughly covered, that is not a bad way to organize articles. If we were to transition to organizing by ideology, what would that do to pages where the ideology is not coherant? That said, do we know that the terrorism described here has a coherant ideology? Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Vanamonde93 I do not know whether there will necessarily always be anything coherant involved involved and concepts associated with ideals may arguably also be wayward. I have seen reports that when, for instance, members of Boko Haram in discussion with people like captives have found it difficult to explain their reasonings. There are theological interpretations invoved from case to case. Ideology though is something far more specific than description. For instance ISIL as an offshoot of Sunni Islam have a variant of a Salafist ideology. Individuals that associate themselves with Sufi and Shia forms of Islam have different ideologies and theological justifications. What they have in common is that they want to promote their own Subset of what they interpret as Islam and they do this with violence according to a, sometimes ill defined, political intention. For each groups individual ends, they each follow a form of Political Islam. GregKaye 10:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Also ping: Broter regarding content above. There is no benefit in not making this change. I think you raise an important point regarding the difference between Christianity and terrorism and would encourage research into the way in which that article coud very relevantly be developed. GregKaye 14:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Interesting. List of Islamist terrorist attacks starts in 1990, about when Islamism. Some logic there.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • CommentThis page and title, are problematic in the same way the Christian terrorism page is. How do we define terrorism. A page on Islamist terrorism could have coherence and defined borders. A page on Islamic terrorism too ill-defined to be encyclopedic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
    • E.M.Gregory, in a philosophical sense I'd agree with you. The problem as I see it, though, is that the very notion of terrorism, and particularly Islamic terrorism, has come into widespread use without this usage being built on rigorous academic definitions. So the usage of the term is literally all over the place. Therefore, I agree that Islamist terrorism should be the name of a good hypothetical page; but I don't see that the things referred to as "Islamic terrorism" can be uniformly shifted to that other name, because they are "Islamic" in the crude sense that they were committed by Muslims, but they are not "Islamist" in that there was frequently no coherent ideology behind them, and no coherent coverage of their motives. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
      • User:Vanamonde93 I think Islamic terrorism could be a good article (coherent). We could move the rest to Terrorism committed by Muslims.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
        • Hum. Interesting idea. Why not take it a little further, though? If it is determined that Islamic ideology played no part, then why is the religion of the perpetrator more relevant than other things about him/her? Wouldn't a more appropriate place be "Isolated terrorist acts" or something like that? I don't know, the usages in media sources, especially, are so poorly thought out. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
          • Vanamonde93 While I would say that no part of core Christian ideology plays a part in so called Christian Terrorism I sadly consider Islam to be broader than that. Before getting judgemental I think comment can be made that, when talking to the Syrian woman, Jesus referred to non Jews as dogs Mt15:26 and when Jesus was due to be born, God left apparent signs in heaven that had an indirect effect of children being killed. On the other side of context Christian ideologies have led to the development of many organisations like the Red Cross. As far as I know somewhat similar ideologies within Islam or Islamic theologies have led to the foundation of a range of charitable organisations. There are examples of killing and ethnic cleansing in the old testament and there are also contents in the koran that can be used, to some extent, to justify heinous acts. One content at the ISIL page, for instance, says: "Political scientist Graeme Wood comments on IS that "the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam"". On the other side of this coin this group is waging war against Sufis and Shias with the response that the Jordanian government writes Enemies of Islam on its bombs. I am mentioning ISIL as it is a topic I have worked on. Another text says "Many Islamic and non-Islamic communities judge the group unrepresentative of Islam." and the word judge here acts as a link to some scathing criticism within which the name Un-Islamic State was even proposed. There are certainly also Islamists that are not violent but all the terrorists are, not only Islamists, they are Islamist extremists. None-the-less, Islamist extremism is certainly by far the more precise term. GregKaye 08:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support more accurate title indeed. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 07:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the same reasons I opposed this same proposal when it was brought up a few months ago, last December. My full reasoning then is here (I don't think it should be necessary to rewrite everything in full detail after only a few months), but it essentially boils down to the fact that the proposed title is not neutral, as it attempts to declare what a major religion is and is not, and which self-declared practitioners of said religion are truly members of the religion, and which are not. Egsan Bacon (talk) 14:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment A unanimously supported move has recently been made to List of Islamist terrorist attacks and this move fits in with existing contents:
The last RM for this article received majority support from participants. The proposed title indicates that people involved in this form of terrorism are involved in a form of political Islam. This is not in dispute and the title is both is neutral and precisely accurate.
GregKaye 16:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Khestwol Scholarship widely uses the term Islamism and it is fairly used by experts in the field like the Quilliam Foundation in describing Islamist terrorism. There is no overuse of the term. The only controversial thing here is the proposal that terrorism can be ascribed to Islam in any kind of broad sense. This form of terrorism only applies to Islamists and the term here is accurately and precisely used. GregKaye 15:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
GregKaye: However, I do not see Islamism as a neutral neologism because its use seems more prevalent among Islamophobes, and in antimuslimist sources. Is that not true? "Islamist terrorism" ascribe terrorism to Islam by even greater degree than "Islamic terrorism" does, because the Islamophobes and antimuslimists who use this term see "Islamism" as the purer representation of the religion of Islam. Plus, we do not even need to go toward a politically controversial title, because the current title "Islamic terrorism" is more commonly used in reliable sources, per Google Ngram. Google Books has about 25,300 results for "Islamic terrorism", but only about 12,400 results for "Islamist terrorism". Hence "Islamic terrorism" is more than twice as common as "Islamist terrorism" in books. Khestwol (talk) 16:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
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.
sigh. Khestwol Islamism "also known as Political Islam, is" I think fairly and straightforwardly defined as "a set of ideologies holding that "Islam should guide social and political as well as personal life". You claim, without substantiation, that this is a loaded term and then trump any suggestion by throwing in mention of Islamophobia as a more extreme neologism. I don't understand why you want terrorism to be directly associated with Islam. Please take a look at http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/about/staff/ . What, how do you think that these people are in any way Islamophobic. Islamist terrorism is quite simply the phraseology that is used by people who best know the subject. What does terrorism have to do with any religion?? Do you then strongly support the association between terrorism and Islam? GregKaye 15:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Chronology rather than by territory

With the recent ISIS-backed/inspired attacks in Lyon, Tunisia and Kuwait, I'm wondering whether we ought to consider running such incidents in chronological rather than geographical order. The attack in Tunisia, for instance, was clearly aimed at Western tourists rather than the indigenous people. What do other editors think? Alfietucker (talk) 09:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The Part about Moving this Article

Yes, I know, another request to move it. The article title is disparaging towards a religion. Either we have similar titles for all religions or move this article to a neutral title. Why make the request again, you may ask: Schilling was just suspended by ESPN. Today, disparaging Islam exists only in the fringe media. Does WP want to be in the fringe circle or truly be an encyclopedia with neutral and fair representation? I want WP to be in the latter section. Who is with me?NiceAdam (talk) 05:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I share your mind. The title should be Islamist terrorism.
But some sources talk about Islamic terrorism too so there is a rationale to see this. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Islamic terrorism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Accuracy and POV tag

While the lead begins with this phrase "Islamic terrorism is, by definition, terrorist acts committed by Muslim groups or individuals who claim to profess Islamic or Islamist motivations or goals. " the title refers to something else. When we use Islamic as an attribute for an issue, it means a especial understanding of the issue based on the Islamic sources that is Quran and Sunnah like Islamic banking. Islamic terrorism means a kind of terrorism which is taught by the Quran and Sunnah! However, whatever the Muslims do can not referred to as "Islamic" issue. Therefor the lead clearly describes Muslims terrorism or Islamists terrorism. --Seyyed(t-c) 06:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

-ic or -ist? Or some other title? Also, the lead should clearly show the distinction between mainstream Islam and terrorism. Compare the leads of Saffron terror, Jewish religious terrorism and Christian terrorism with this article. Also compare how the etymology of the term is discussed and use of words like "alleged", "neologism", etc. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 11:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
The first sentence of this article is virtually the same as that of Christian terrorism. It's Jewish religious terrorism that's the outlier and perhaps questionable but that will have to be taken up in the talk of that article. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
If we describe the issue as "Islamic terrorism" then the first sentence should be like this: "The kind of violence which is originated or derived form Islamic sources as part of Sharia and known as terrorist acts in contemporary discourse." The scope and approach of the article with such title is different with the current one. We can not describe whatever have been done by some Muslims as "Islamic", if so, then there could have been religious titles such as "Islamic robbery", "Islamic sexual abuse", etc!!!--Seyyed(t-c) 14:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
We are reflecting sources. Neither the sources nor Wikipedia say that the terrorism is indeed Islamic in the sense that you imply. We aren't arguing that the "professed" claims of terrorists should be taken at face value. If so, we'd drop "professed" just as we do not have "professed" in Islamic finance. Like Christian terrorism, the religious underpinnings are not accepted by the sources. Thus the phrases in each case is not meant as a commentary on the religion, otherwise it would be in the main article on the religion. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
The phrase has meaning by itself. "Islamic" implies the issue has origin in Shariah, thus the article should cover it from this viewpoint and not from the viewpoint of the Islamists activities. Of course, in this approach we refer to the sources, as well. You see, each approach is compatible with a specific title. In other word, the title defines the approach and scope of the article.--Seyyed(t-c) 17:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I think Seyyed is presenting a fair argument here. The title is a clear POV. Yes, we're certainly here to reflect the reliable secondary sources here, as Jason from nyc said, but how the reflection is carried out by the editors is of a great importance and if "the phrases in each case is not meant as a commentary on the religion," then we should not let them appear as if they are "meant as a commentary on the religion". "Islamic terrorism" is defined as kind of terrorism which is based on Islamic rules, comparing to common phrases having "Islamic" as an attribute! Mhhossein (talk) 18:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Appropriate notification: @GregKaye and Mbcap: Mhhossein (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I beg to differ. The adjective "Islamic" does not necessarily mean that the subject has its origin in Shariah law anymore than Islamic mathematics has its origin in Shariah law. The adjective just means it has some clear or tenuous identification with things of an Islamic nature. That is how it is used thought out the sources as this is a phrase that has meaning as a whole. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Islamic mathematics has moved to Mathematics in medieval Islam in 2008![2] I think Islamic banking and finance is a good example of my argument. Islamic banking is banking or banking activity that is consistent with the principles of sharia (Islamic law) and its practical application through the development of Islamic economics. As such, a more correct term for Islamic banking is sharia compliant finance. Islamic economics has the same viewpoint. Even in the case of Islamic philosophy, you can find similar viewpoint in the work of one of the the main founder of the term, Henry Corbin. As you can read in this article, even Bernard Lewis says "At no time did the (Muslim) jurist approve of terrorism. Nor indeed is there any evidence of the use of terrorism (in Islamic tradition). Muslims are commanded not to kill women, children, or the aged, not to torture or otherwise ill-treat prisoners, The rules and regulations concerning prisoners of war in Islam to give fair warning of the opening of hostilities, and to honor agreements. Similarly, the laws of Jihad categorically preclude wanton and indiscriminate slaughter.[36] The warriors in the holy war are urged not to harm non-combatants, women and children, "unless they attack you first." A point on which they insist is the need for a clear declaration of war before beginning hostilities, and for proper warning before resuming hostilities after a truce. What the classical jurists of Islam never remotely considered is the kind of unprovoked, unannounced mass slaughter of uninvolved civil populations that we saw in New York two weeks ago. For this there is no precedent and no authority in Islam." --Seyyed(t-c) 00:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

We are not taking sides. We are reflecting sources. Lewis is properly part of the article as are other reliable sources. A reliable source isn't an infallible source; it is merely a respected author or publisher. The Islamic world isn't monolithic. There are views through out the Islamic world and through out the ages that are worthy of describing in this article. And there are analysts who talk about all those views and try to make sense of it for the reader. Our job is to reflect what is written, not debate and decide who is right. We are not the authors and commentators. We just report what reliable sources say and reflect the difference of opinions that exist whether we agree or not. If the reader finds we are censoring and filtering we undermine Wikipedia. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Jason from nyc: I am familiar with the policies of wikipedia. I know the Islamic world is not monolithic and all of the articles which relate to Islamic issues try to cover the different viewpoint based on WP:NPOV. I agree with all of the issues you've mentioned above. Thus, let's discuss on this article. "Islamic terrorism" is something and "Islamists terrorism" is something else. We can not use the former as the title and describe the later in the article! "Islamic terrorism" covers all of the notable viewpoints about the religious basis of terrorism in Islam. While the "Islamists terrorism" covers all of the notable viewpoints about how Islamists justify their acts by Islam and what they do in practice. I hope I could clarify the problem for you. So, please do not remind the policies instead of answering to the problem.--Seyyed(t-c) 12:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
This is mere semantics. Islamism is Islamic, as the very first paragraph of Islamism shows. Our article has a bibliography in which "Islam" and not "Islamism" is the word used in many of the titles regardless of the author's thesis. We should reflect the literature, not correct the literature. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I think the title is questioned here and not the content (by now). So, whether what different sects believe has nothing to do with this thread. I suggest to have an official RM. Mhhossein (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
These are two separate issues. @Jason from nyc:, as if someone mixes up sex and sexuality and claims it is just literature review! @Mhhossein: according to the former discussions on moving, we may not reach to consensus on moving. Therefoe, I suggest to make two separates articles.--Seyyed(t-c) 13:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Seyyed:How can the separation help? separate what from what? Mhhossein (talk) 16:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Islamists' act and ideology from Shariah. Of course, there may be overlap between them but it is clear that killing Muslims in the mosque while worship God is not Islamic.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry but I did not get the titles! Could you explain more? Mhhossein (talk) 04:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
As I told above Islamic terrorism" covers all of the notable viewpoints about the religious basis of terrorism in Islam. While the "Islamists terrorism" covers all of the notable viewpoints about how Islamists justify their acts by Islam and what they do in practice. I hope I could clarify the problem for you. So, please do not remind the policies instead of answering to the problem.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
It's a good suggestion Seyyed, but if an article is going to cover " all of the notable viewpoints about the religious basis of terrorism in Islam" that would better be entitled "Viewpoints on Islamic terrorism" or something like this. The second title, "Islamists terrorism", is good and proper for the goals you defined for it, in my viewpoint. Mhhossein (talk) 04:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Islamic terrorism is an accurate though less than ideal description for the phemomena that is widely described be the term. Islamist terrorism would clearly, in my view, be better. It is certainly more specific though it is marginally less commonly used. What we don't do in Wikipedia is to present a non representative content in respect to a title. We have to present the topic as it is presented by sources.
This is something that I took some time to look into after dealing with the topic commonly known as "anti-Semitism" which in Wikipedia goes against WP:UCRN so as to present antisemitism. As I have previously noted, no matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney. Despite the fact that anti-Jewish sentiment would have been a much more specific title for the topic, the current title stands because it is closely understood to relate to its subject matter.
Christianity, despite having a religious teachings that go to the extent of a command to turn the other cheek even when struck, has the article Christian terrorism.
Wikipedia is full of misnomers. In these cases, in my view, it would best to change titles so as to better represent content. It is not however our job to change Wikipedia content in ways that it fails to represent content as presented in sources. GregKaye 14:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I am a Muslim and Islamism or Islamist is not correct Oghd (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal

There is a fairly extensive section on Muslim attitudes toward terrorism; there's also an article called Muslim attitudes toward terrorism. We should clearly choose one or the other to focus on. I would advocate merging the 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) 12:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 19 external links on Islamic terrorism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:QS

Brigadier S. K. Malik’s important work The Quranic Concept of War was published in English in 1979. Malik was a serving brigadier general in the Pakistani Army. The then-chief of staff of the army, Zia ul-Haq, said the book would serve as the army’s doctrine.Malik, S. K. (1979). The Quranic Concept of War (PDF). Lahore, Pakistan: Wajid Al’s Ltd. p. Foreword. So Gen. Malik’s work was more than just his opinion; it contained the operational guidelines for the Pakistani military. When Gen. Malik talks about the Quranic concept of war (pp 57–58), he includes the four following quotes from the Koran to make his point:Malik, S. K. (1979). The Quranic Concept of War (PDF). Lahore, Pakistan: Wajid Al’s Ltd. p. 57,58.

removing this highly questionable source. Unknown author, only mentioned in reference to this only book he allgedly published. No reference by reliable third party source to this book or to the author at all. WP:QS /WP:SPS. --Namarhana (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
This content should stay on wikipedia! Look at http://www.amazon.com/Quranic-Concept-War-S-Malik/dp/8170020204/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1464108155&sr=1-1 and at http://thegorkabriefing.com/strategy-of-jihad-general-s-k-maliks-quranic-concept-of-war/ from Sebastian Gorka!--Broter (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
1. No one else mentions him, no reliable third party source or publication cited him or his book. In fact, he is only mentioned by dubious anti-islamic websites regarding this book. 2. Oh of course, Sebastian Gorka, an expert, according to who? His own website?? (the article only cites his own website). Still WP:QS and WP:SPS. --Namarhana (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Regarding recent edits

1. S.K. Maliks Book removal has been discussed on Talk:Islamic_terrorism#WP:QS and is in conclusion incongruos with Wikipedia:Questionable Source and Wikipedia: Reliable Source, furthermore it falls under the category of self-published Books.

2. Robert Spencer known for his islamophobic and anti-islamic views was even banned from entering the UK. His Book was critisized by one of the leading experts in Islamic- and Comparative Religious studies Karen Armstrong. In response he called her a leftist jihadi. No comment on this.

--Ungereimt (talk) 16:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Robert Spencer quotes Muhammad correctly and there is no reason to remove this.--Broter (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
it's not up to us to judge the content. Someone picked some Hadith he quotes in his book, without any context. Many academic publications are available, especially on this particular issue. We don't have to cite islamophobic or anti-islamic sources. --Ungereimt (talk) 17:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Apparently you want to hide the problematic things, which muhammad said.--Broter (talk) 18:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Like I said, it's not up to us to pick quotes from a book, without any context. Robert Spencer is known for his subjective anti-islamic views.(hence banned from the UK). As a cofounder of Stop Islamization of America and founder ofJihad Watch, he has an apparent conflict of interest. That is not an academic or reliable source. --Ungereimt (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I agree we should not use fringe sources and fringe interpretations. Samuel said, "'Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'" [New American Standard Bible] One could use a quote like that to show that Jews, Christians and Muslims are all genocidal. TFD (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2016 (UTC).

Yes, they are all genocidal. Why should a quote like this not be used to prove a point? The Bible is replete with them. Zezen (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Islamic terrorism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Checked 404 archive. Replaced with earlier working capture for article. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Comparison with Christianity are misleading.

Consider the Michael Sells quote: "[Most Muslims] no more expect to apply [the verses at issue] to their contemporary non-Muslim friends and neighbors than most Christians and Jews consider themselves commanded by God, like the Biblical Joshua, to exterminate the infidels." Taken out of context this suggests the teachings and example of Muhammad are similar to the genocidal atrocities of Joshua. Do we want this implication? Jason from nyc (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Reza Aslan says of today's Islam that it is "similar to that of the 16th-century reformation in Christianity, which was as old as Islam currently is at that period." Is it as bad as pre-Enlightenment Europe and 500 years behind the times? Do we want this implication? Jason from nyc (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

This article is about extremist groups of Muslims, not Christianity nor Islam in general. I've taken the liberty of removing these misleading quotes but leaving the main points that these two authors make. Hopefully this is not controversial.Jason from nyc (talk) 15:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Both authors are reasonable and well-known and we are allowed to quote comments that does not mean they are endorsed. Mohammed of course accepted the views expressed in the Old Testament and Massachusetts based its criminal code on it. Muslims in some parts of the world embrace views we would consider pre-modern but I think the point is that their interpretation is not the only possilbe one. Christian religious violence of course reached its zenith at the time of the Reformation just as Islamic religious violence has today. I do not see any of the comments as an attack on any of the three religions. There is a lot of horrible things in the holy texts of all three faiths. TFD (talk) 17:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Like TFD said, both authors are well-known and deal with the issue of islamic terrorism. The comparisons are important and should stay. --Cr1258 (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I thought the summary of their views was enough but it's a judgment call. If you both believe the quotes help, I'll put them back if someone hasn't already. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Robert Spencer

@Broter: Robert Spencer has no academic qualifications related to Islam, and his works do not appear in academic, respected, peer-reviewed publications. Spencer's reliability has been discussed numerous times here on Wiki, and shown to be utterly unreliable. The onus is on YOU to prove and justify the inclusion of a non-academic blogger like Spencer. Al-Andalusi (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

He quotes Muhammad correctly and thus should be included.--Broter (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Spencer is published in the Middle East Quarterly which is peer reviewed. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
There is nothing that establishes Spencer as an expert on Islam, Middle East, or even terrorism. See User:Al-Andalusi/Links to reliable sources discussions for previous discussions. Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Islam is not monolithic. There are many strains. Spencer, like Armstrong, are popularizers. As such they write for a general audience on the level of the average reader in Wikipedia. Spencer tends to focus on Salafi interpretations as they relate to recent trends. Although he has written on some historical topics and has published in peer reviewed journals since the discussion in your links. The topic Islamic terrorism is a recent topic due to events in the past 20 years. As such most literature tends to be by journalists and general writers. Some stress textual interpretations by jihadists are innovations and not generally accepted, as they should. There is no reason for Wikipedia to take sides in theological disputes nor sectarian issues. Jason from nyc (talk) 22:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
You mean there is no reason for Wikipedia to include the views of unqualified people, especially those that hold extremist views. The removed content is not based on the Middle East Quarterly you linked above, which in any case is an advocacy group and does not appear to be widely cited by mainstream news or scholarly publications (the MEQ is self-described as "controversial"), therefore it is not reliable here either. Spencer remains utterly unreliable, despite the emotional plea to include him for "fairness". If you still have doubts, I suggest you raise it with WP:RSN and come back us with a consensus for their reliability before restoration. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
There is actually extensive literature on Islamic terrorism. David C. Rapoport for example identifies it as part of a third wave of terror. Spencer AFAIK has never written peer-reviewed articles and is seen as an extremist by the SPLC and is banned from the UK.Beyond that his scholarship of Islam is poor, so his articles are not reliable for facts. TFD (talk) 23:41, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Rapoport gives a good historic summary as well covering religious terrorism in the last few decades. He'd be worth adding. What do you think of Peter Bergen? Jason from nyc (talk) 02:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Raman Kapur

Raman Kapur is a reliable source. Kapur is a Director and Clinical Psychologist, Queen's University of Belfast, Northern Ireland. Kaput is an expert in all types of terrorism and has published articles in anthologies on terrorism. He is also a regular contributor to the BBC. He is a reliable source and brings decades of knowledge to the study of terrorism to the subject. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:40, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Al-Andalusi, what's your objection to Kapur? Jason from nyc (talk) 21:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with @Al-Andalusi:'s removal since as you mention, Raman Kapur is only a psychologist, and has no expertise whatsoever in either Islam or "Islamic terrorism", just like Spencer, just like Spencer.
23:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)CounterTime (talk)
Couple of things. The BBC describes him as a "consultant clinical psychologist and chief executive of mental health charity Threshold". I could not find support for the claim that he is an expert in terrorism. Writing one or two articles on terrorism does not make him a scholar on the subject.
Nevertheless, the content did not even convey Kapur's complete argument. He says that it is injustice and oppression by Western governments that is the cause of anger among perpetrators, and says that coupling THAT injustice with "legitimization of extreme interpretations of religion" is a "deadly cocktail in the transition of a 'normal' human being to a terrorist'". So you can see how misleading it is for the wiki article to simply say "this is what Muhammad said".
Furthermore, Kapur claims that the "persecuted in Iraq" could interpret Muhammad's saying ("made victorious with terror") as an "adoption of terror". This is a silly argument to begin with, it is as if people who were militarily occupied and humiliated by foreigners need a hadith to be able defend themselves! A more accurate translation of the hadith would be "given victory with awe (cast into the hearts of the enemy)", but Kapur interprets "terror" quite literally here which tells me he obviously has no knowledge of the Islamic primary sources. Besides, this is a hadith where Muhammad boasted about personal qualities he was blessed with over the other prophets of God. How one can deduce from this hadith a permission to commit "terror" is not clear. Al-Andalusi (talk) 00:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Kapur agrees with you that it is not the hadith itself but other factors that lead to terrorism and the terrorists distorts the quote. I wrote "Kapur, an expert on terrorist psychology, says these teachings are "hijacked" by Islamic terrorists to justify their hatred of the other." Thus he is not agreeing with the terrorist but with the critic who says the terrorist misuses such quotes. If you don't think we completely conveyed Kapur's idea that this is an "extreme interpretations of religion" used by those whose real motivation is real or perceived injustice, propose a better summary. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
As to Kapur's expertise on terrorism. It goes back decades. It includes terrorism in Northern Ireland (co-wrote a book.) But he has been esteemed enough to be included in an anthology of terrorism as he's turned to the psychology of rationalizing terrorism. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Kapur, a psychologist, wrote a single book on Northern Ireland. I fail to see all the hype around him being an "terrorism expert". Please provide links to support these claims. More importantly however, is that you are trying to include a comment of his that he made in passing, and one that is stated as a speculation. Islamist groups and their usage of the vast religious literature is something that has been intensely studied. It shouldn't be hard to find support for his claim among other references. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


@Jason from nyc:, I removed the Kapur reference per the reasons discussed above. Unreliable reference, expertise not established, view distorted,...etc. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

We have not reached a consensus. Your POV isn't enough. He is recognized as a terror expert even if you don't accept that. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Hey Jason, just a reminder: your post at the RS noticeboard also received pushback from myself and from another editor. That's four editors, by my count, so this is not a "unilateral consensus", as your edit summary implies. The WP:BURDEN lies with the restoring editor. This is a low-quality publication, by a not-particularly notable expert, and it offers his quote and interpretation of a religious text with which he has no expertise. Further, there are several additional "see also" links that appear to be entirely original research. This is not acceptable. Nblund (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
No one has proved he's not notable. There was nothing to show his credentials aren't in place. Basically there were complaints on the content of his work, and that's a POV judgment. There were complaints that he isn't qualified to pass theological judgments and I'm not using him for theology. No one has provided evidence that he isn't a terrorism expert that can't be used for an article on terrorism. Consensus isn't a "democracy" but something reached after providing relevant criticism. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I didn't really discuss the content of his work, actually. I pointed out that the publisher was bottom-tier at best, and I noted that, whatever his credentials related to terrorism, he wasn't qualified for this particular statement or quotation.
He was quoted in the section titled "Interpretations of the Qur'an and Hadith". The citation provided a block quote from the Hadith, followed by several "See also" links to other passages, followed by a claim that this quote was being misused. It's tough to see how that would be interpreted as a non-theological argument. Looking at the citation, Kapur isn't even claiming that any terrorist group has ever used this passage in propaganda. He just offers it as an example of something that "could be" misinterpreted under the right conditions.
As I said: there are far more notable scholars who could be cited to make Kapur's argument, and this is not a great source to begin with. But the biggest problem here is that he's being mis-used to offer a theological point. As a compromise, I think we could easily resolve this by quoting a different passage that deals more with Kapur's stated area of expertise. We could write: "Kapur links the willingness to commit terrorist violence to feelings of injustice and disappointment with state or religious authorities, and argues that governments need to 'take seriously the grievances that constitute the reasons why such acts occur' (page 138)", this would probably fit better in the section on "identity-based reasons" for terrorism, and it would be a more accurate summary of his key thesis. Nblund (talk) 23:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I agree Kapur could be used for more; and his main thesis is that the root cause lies elsewhere, while religion is only deployed in the rationalization of the cause. I have no problem with using Kapur in this matter. Still, he does mention that certain religious passages serve the purpose of rationalizing terror. I think we are not going to agree on his use of this example of exploitation of religious texts. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Movement of Ex-Muslims of Belgium

@Broter: Per WP:PRIMARY, interpretations of primary sources like hadith, including their relevance to the article, have to be supported by WP:RSs. A website of an "ex-Muslim" advocacy group is not a RS. Eperoton (talk) 02:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

This source is good enough for wikipedia and the hadith, too.--Broter (talk) 06:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
@Broter: Calling a source "good enough" is not good enough. You have to establish that it meets the criteria for reliability per WP:V and WP:RS. Either the publisher or the author has to have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The text is unattributed and published on an advocacy website. The Who are we section doesn't even claim any academic credentials or other recognized expertise on the subject. What is your basis for making this claim on their behalf? Eperoton (talk) 13:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
There is no requirement to use academic sources.--Broter (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
You're ignoring what I wrote. Again, either the publisher or the author has to have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Non-academic reliable sources are discussed in WP:SOURCE and arbitrary websites certainly don't meet those criteria. WP:V isn't the only policy your addition violates. The connection of the quoted hadith translation to terrorism is not only poorly sourced, but is WP:OR on your part. Violating either policy is sufficient grounds for reverting your addition, but since you're also ignoring the WP:BURDEN section of WP:V ("the burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material") and edit warring to reinsert your disputed addition, I'll take the higher road and give you a chance to make your case, tagging the policy violations for the time being. Eperoton (talk) 16:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Please note that, should no RS secondary sources be introduced within a few days substantiating this addition as anything other than OR, I'll be removing this content... although, by all rights, I'm well within my rights to do so now per WP:BRD. Per the site's About us page, it has no affiliation with any reliable sources and smacks of being an op-ed (read as blog) site run by one man and his dog. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
I have changed the source and it is now better.--Broter (talk) 01:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Even worse. That's just source misrepresentation. Eperoton (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton:: You have to watch the video segment.--Broter (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton:: Look at Megyn Kelly (17 Nov 2015). "Former CIA Double Agent/Al Qaeda Member: Another Attack Coming in '2 Weeks'". Fox News. Retrieved 31 July 2016. and watch the whole video. It is not a misrepresentation. Morten Storm cites this hadith with the quote: I have been made victorious with terror.--Broter (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Even so, what establishes this ex-terrorist as a RS on anything other than his own opinion? And where's an explanation of relevance of this hadith to the subject? Eperoton (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
This is an ex-terrorist who knows about this subject. This hadith is relevant because it inspires terror.--Broter (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
If that's all you have to substantiate your claims, your addition will get removed whenever someone's patience runs out. I could try to explain the policies again, but I see that it's having no effect. A look at the history shows that you've been pushing non-reliable sources in this article for a while now, and several editors have pointed the relevant policy out to you, and yet you're still acting like you're hearing about it for the first time. Eperoton (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Ozma Seyyed Yousef Sanei

This sentence, sourced by a dead link, certainly raised my eyebrow and prompted me to investigate further: "Iranian Ayatollah Ozma Seyyed Yousef Sanei issued a fatwa stating that suicide attacks against civilians are legitimate only in the context of war." I know that there are Muslim clerics who justify suicide attacks against some civilians arguing that they aren't really civilians, but I haven't heard that particular argument before. It makes sense that an Iranian cleric would include a wartime provision for suicide attacks, given the legacy of Iranian kamikaze frontline missions in the Iran-Iraq war. The interpolation of "civilians" makes even less sense for Sanei, who, according to a profile in Haaretz, "uses his public status as a platform to preach in favor of civil rights and gender equality, and against suicide attacks." The only trace of the cited report I can find is its lead which says "A fatwa or religious edit has been issued against suicide attacks in Iran by Ayatollah Ozma Seyyed Yousef Sanei, one of the highest Shiite authorities." There's also an interview with him on PBS, where he says "Terror in Islam, and especially Shiite, is forbidden." All that makes our current formulation suspect and requiring better sourcing than a dead link. I'll rewrite it based on the currently available RSs. Eperoton (talk) 23:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Please wait it out a little longer. I'm repairing links now, and it will be far easier to establish credible from non-RS, as well as WP:V that the citations aren't SYNTH or just don't support the content. Cheers. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree. My search fails to substantiate the "only in the context of war" comment and indeed it goes against all the statements I've found, which are strong prohibitions in every case and manner. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
I've done a fairly thorough job on the references today, but there are a few to go. There are a number of highly dubious sources already identified, and a few more for me to clean up tomorrow. I'll continue cite checking as I go. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
This is a great help. By the way, I've notice one, #43 [3], to an article of Bernard Lewis in the Wall Street Journal of Sept 27, 2001. The link brings one to the WSJ current opinion page and not the article. I've found an article for that date [4] but the quote is not in the article. Many of the points are in the article and perhaps this wasn't meant to be a quote but a paraphrase of views in the article? Or it is original research as someone has put references to primary sources in the quote. If so, we might want to replace the quote with a better summary of Lewis' points. Jason from nyc (talk) 10:32, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Actually, the second half of the quote comes from the WSJ article but from different parts. I re-wrote the quote with proper ellipsis. I changed the link. Jason from nyc (talk) 10:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Order of sections--proposed reorder

Logically the section on "Tactics" should come before "Examples of organizations and acts" as terrorism is a tactic and this explains in details the various means of terrorism. "Examples of organization and acts" covers geographical cases. If we change the order, I'd remove "Selected attacks" from within "Tactics" and make it a standalone section after "Examples of organizations and acts" or perhaps part of it. Comments? Jason from nyc (talk) 14:07, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree. KamelTebaast 02:04, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree about the placement of Tactics. Do we need "Selected attacks" as a separate section? I generally advocate replacing partial lists without clear selection criteria contained in non-list articles by running text to avoid encouraging cherrypicking based on OR, and in this case it seems to be redundant with the already existing "Examples of organizations and acts". The List of Islamist terrorist attacks is navigable by column sort, so I don't see any benefit from having that hard-to-navigate section as opposed to a "further" link at the top of "Examples of organizations and acts". P.S. Or one could introduce explicit selection criteria, something like "Ten deadliest attacks". Eperoton (talk) 14:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Agreed about the placement, however I'm with Eperoton regarding running text as being my preference to a list. The idea of the ten deadliest attacks, however, is problematic as that would be a contravention of WP:NOR unless we have RS to back such content up (i.e., do we have sources naming the 'deadliest attacks'?). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
That's a good point. List of Islamist terrorist attacks isn't as well organized and sourced as it appeared at a glance, and, even if it were, basing a "top K" list on it presupposes its completeness, which is not a valid assumption. Attacks that caused more than K deaths would be another option. That is, if there is good motivation for having this list here in addition to the existing running text in "Examples of organizations and acts". I personally think this kind of information would be better served by (appropriately improved) List of Islamist terrorist attacks. Eperoton (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
That makes sense to me. Running text with a hatnote seems to be the order of the day. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Makes sense to me, too. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:35, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Islamic Terrorism in Eastern Asia/China?

What about Islamic Terrorism in China?--141.19.228.15 (talk) 19:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

History

Im sure this article can use a longer history than just a small paragraph. Thinker78 (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Why? Using what WP:RS labelling historical events as 'terrorism'/'terrorist'? As it stands, the "History" section is spurious as such terminology has only come into use very recently in human history. Massacres, wars, etc. waged in the name of any given religion were not spoken of as acts of 'terrorism', therefore reworking them = revisionism/WP:OR. That would entail reinventing the Crusades as being acts of 'terrorism' just for starters. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I believe this article should be semi-protected, as it is vulnerable to vandalism, due to the rise of Islamophobia recently. Tala hayat (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tala hayat (talk • contribs) 18:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

child pornography networks

Given their perceived piety, The Times noted the irony when an investigation discovered that Jihadists were seeking anonymity through some of the same networks used to distribute child pornography. The paper praised the raid's ability to "improve understanding of the mindsets of both types of criminals"

without additional information, this seems rather pointless. What are these networks, and which raid is the article referring to? Prevalence 15:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Islamic terrorism. 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamic_terrorism/Archive_8&oldid=825723596"