Talk:Jihad/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions about Jihad. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Page protection

I've been asked by a few people how long the page is going to stay locked, because apparently I protected the wrong version. I didn't read the version before I locked it, other than to check it wasn't vandalism, and even now that I've read it, I don't know enough about the subject to give an intelligent opinion. I think I'd say that having a section on prisoners of war is not entirely in keeping with the rest of the page, so I wonder whether that section could be given its own page, though that might simply move the dispute. Whether it's moved or stays here, it probably needs more sources and better ones. For example, it's not clear how credible this website [1] is.

Perhaps someone could let me know whether any kind of consensus has been reached. I don't want to keep it locked, but on the other hand, it seems pointless to unlock it only for the reverting and sockpuppetry to start up again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:28, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I am not really good at reaching an agreement with Zeno, I am not sure if he is even understanding what I have written on the talk but he disagrees with what I'm saying or what he thinks I'm saying. It has been my contention (just as you mentioned) that prisoner of war is not related to Jihad but to the broader concept of war... I argued for removing that section and cutting down on the Qur'an quotes to only those directly related to Jihad arguments. Zeno accused me of being apologetic and trying to hide controversial issues. I of course believe he wants to portray Islam in a dark light by using as much middle ages quotes as possible. To me it's like talking about Christianity in terms of old old theology... we just don't do that. But, we disagree...

As for that personal site it has to go. Zeno gave me a link of a web archive to a Chechan militant Islamic site that he said it came from... It's my belief that he is playing around by using Islamic sources to say he's NPOV but... of course there is great variance and he seems to be portraying a certain type of source. All that said there surely isn't concensus on this. Zora seems to be as sick of this bickering as I am and has (maybe wiseless) given this a wide berth. I'm not sure if Mustafaa or dab have had anything to do with this. *sighs* gren 02:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

That website (which SlimVirgin has referred to above) is definitely not credible at all - it's blatant political propaganda which has no place here on WP. Those who feel strongly about their position should not have to resort to such methods when they are free to reference legitimate sources or websites (if such are available). Accuracy should be the priority here, not this antagonistic tendency towards anti-Islamic bias. It's one thing for an editor to offer an opposing POV in good faith, it's quite another when such an editor does so (using propaganda) to flagrantly advance a political agenda. SouthernComfort 04:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

With respect, I disagree about there not being consensus on this. I think it's pretty clear how most editors feel about this. Here's my summary, for what it's worth. I'd appreciate it if only people who personally expressed themselves here and feel I have misrepresented their position below would post objections here. If you fall into some other category, perhaps you could open up another section.

On the record as opposing the current POW section (either wanting to get rid of it entirely, condense it dramatically, or link it to a different, related article:

User:Tznkai

Correct. I think it should be see also-ed or summarized and put in another article. Exhaustive descriptions of one element of an aspect of Jihad is not needed.--Tznkai 04:07, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Farhansher

User:Grenavitar (Gren, have I got your position right?)

User:MikeJ9919 "while I believe some mention of prisoners of war and their treatment belongs in their article, I am not certain it should be the primary article for that purpose. I would suggest a subsection with a trimmed version of the above text linking to a separate main article (not specifically for prisoners of war in Islam, but perhaps the above-mentioned Rules of war in Islam.) " (He then says that if. however, consensus is to keep the passage, that the POW version as is works for him.)

User:SouthernComfort

Yes - either remove entirely or move to separate article. And in the case of the latter option, adhere to proper, credible sources. SouthernComfort 04:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Heraclius

User:BrandonYusufToropov

On the record as supporting the current POW section:

(Slim, I will need your help here. I have my own ideas about the number of distinct living beings who hold this position, but that's not as relevant as your assessment.)

Hahahaha. POW. Bleh. Prisoner Of [edit]War!!! Tomer ^TALK 04:40, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I would like to see the article unlocked. If we can't do that, I would vote to freeze the version that does not have the text that was inserted in the most recent edit war. BrandonYusufToropov 03:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Found typo: In Treatment of Prisoners of War - third line, enslvaed-> enslaved. Can someone alter this please?

Thanks for the feedback. It's clear that most people agree there's a problem with this section, so I've unlocked the page so you can deal with it. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:27, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I will be drafting a proposal for how to deal with the concerns that have arisen in this recent edit war. The draft will include a re-structuring of the Jihad article, and the creation of a number of new articles. The whole draft will be developed in my Wikipedia user pages. When the draft is complete, we can see how to proceed with it. I have also editing the current POW section to reflect the discussion about this link [[2] that took place in Talk:Jihad#In_Response_to_gren.27s_Comments_on_Zeno.27s_Edits_of_the_POW_Section --Zeno of Elea 00:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Prisoner of War section Has Been Moved

Since User:BrandonYusufToropov has taken the liberty of deleting the POW section (without conensus or discussion, I might add), I have moved the POW section to the spin-off article Rules of war in Islam. A revert war will probably start there shortly. --Zeno of Elea 02:20, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

There was a great deal of discussion above.--Tznkai 02:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

First of all, there was no discussion by BrandonYusuf. Secondly, the discussion involved a number of different proposals, ranging from reducing the POW section and linking to anothe section, to deleting the POW section, to deleting the warfare in Islam section. Which course of action to take, and on what basis, must be discussed and explained. Are we purging the article of all discussions about "warfare in Islam?" Or are we saying that the rules of war in Islam are not a part of "warfare in Islam?" Or was we saying that the rules of War in Islam and the rules governing POWs are two seperate subjects? Simply having a confused and wide variety of opinions is not the same as having a consensus. --Zeno of Elea 02:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I also note, User:Tznkai, that you have provided no response to my argument against your notion that " Jihad is about the struggle proscribed in Islam, and the use of the term by various groups, not about Islam's teaching on war" in Talk:Jihad#Response to Tznkai's Argument, and that BYT's edits run contrary to your notion since apparently you wanted to delete the "warfare in Islam" section and not just the POW subsection. --Zeno of Elea 02:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I did not feel the need to respond since you had misenterpreted my argument, possibily dilberatly, and everyone else seems to have gotten the idea. I really don't care a bit about winning an argument here, I just want the article to recieve consensus. Warfare in Islam is a poorly named section at the very least, and I am planning on fixing it. The POW subsection, as I explained, was taking it out too far, similar to discussing the history of civil religion on the flag article. At any rate, since you've found a solution by moving the section, is there a reason to remain here and point fingers? Just write the article.--Tznkai 17:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

"I did not feel the need to respond" User:Tznkai, if you do not feel that you need to thoroughly discuss edits then you should not be editing this article.

"since you had misenterpreted my argument, possibily dilberatly," I did not misrepresent your argument. Also, please see WP:AGF.

"and everyone else seems to have gotten the idea." You do not speak for everyone else, you speak only for yourself. PLease do not pretend otherwise.

"I really don't care a bit about winning an argument here, I just want the article to recieve consensus." PLease see Wikipedia:Consensus. The first sentence of the policy states: "Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through polite discussion and negotiation..." You have clearly failed to understand what consensus building means if you think that you need not defend your arguments or engage in discussion in order to build consensus. --Zeno of Elea 01:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Last time I should have to say this. Zeno, whether you are right or wrong you are needlessly combative. I will address any specific points during edit conflicts, and thats about it. I have no intrest in getting in conduct discussions with you unless I see a significant change in behavoir. If you feel however, that my conduct is a serious problem, you are welcome to file an RFC, RFM or RFAr. Barring those official channels, or an impressivly polite note on my talk page, I will no longer discuss conduct with you, nor edits unless it is absolutely need.

Should any other active user ask me to explain in further detail my edits, conduct, or reasoning behind this decision, I will do so.--Tznkai 04:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Subsection Removed: "Excerpts from the Q'uran

Moved the subsection to Talk:Rules of war in Islam pending its insertion over there. Renamed Warfare in Islam section to keep it all on topic.--Tznkai 17:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Tznkai, the Rules of war in Islam is not the appropriate place for a discussion of Qur'an quotes on war, just as it is not the appropriate place for discussion of "defensive" and "offensive" jihad. There are some QUr'an quotes that are specific to the RUles of war in Islam, but most are not. That article's talk page is not a place for you to dump anything that you don't want on Wikipedia. Explain the edits you are doing, and demonstrate that consensus has been reached. --Zeno of Elea 01:29, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Huh? how is the section on Qur'an on warfare not immediatly relevant to the Rules of War in Islam?--Tznkai 01:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Zeno. I think all of the quotes should be looked at and cleaned to make sure they are all talking about the root JHD. Also it should use those that are quoted in Jihad arguments if they don't use the word JHD, ones that are used in context of either type of Jihad specifically. I don't think it's a good idea to just remove things like that from the article, although I think there needs to be some context, etc. to those quotes. gren 04:00, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

The subsection removed was "Excerpts from the Qur'an on warfare" not "exerpts from the Qur'an on Jihad". The Jihad article is about Jihad. The Rules of war in Islam is about the rules of war in Islam. I think its obvious what goes where--Tznkai 04:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the articles in general are better off without lists of exceprts from Quran and hadith. Quotes should only be used when they are explained in a wider context. --Zeno of Elea 08:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, the quotes (although they said warfare) would presumably have been ones using the JHD Arabic root, and that would make sense since JHD will be related to Jihad. That's what I was trying to say gren 09:43, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

"The Qur'an uses the term jihad in a military setting only four times (9:24, 22:78, 25:52, 60:1), none of which refer definitively to armed struggle. However, the concept of holy Islamic war was not itself a latter day invention, and the Qur'an does contain passages that correlate to specific historic events ... and that may help to illuminate the theory, and practice of armed struggle (qi'tal) for Muslims. A few examples are as follows:"

I read that and the following quotes as having nothing to do with Jihad and merely an attempt to use quotations to illustrate certain points having to do with the Islamic teachings of warfare. Mind you, I have no knowledge of Arabic or the contents of the Qu'ran (like most readers), so I do not know if the JHD root is present, only that the writing did not make that clear.--Tznkai 18:26, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of where the article is placed, it is extremely important that it is accompanied by muslim commentary on the verses so that they are not misinterpreted. Currently, the most comprehensive website to do this is Commonly Misquoted Verses and Narrations Muwahid 02:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Article added Muwahid 19:47, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Article Rewrite

I felt that the article needed to be majorly restructured, mostly to accomodate the concerns that have recently come up regarding the emphasis of the article on Jihad as "holy war." A lot of new information has been added, while at the same time greatly simplifying and reducing the size of the article. The reduction in size has been made possible by creating the new articles defensive Jihad, offensive Jihad, and building on the work started by BrandonYusuf on the rules of war in Islam. I've also removed the NPOV tag because I think all the real controversies have been moved to the spin-off articles (which I think is good, because it allows us to focus on specific topics). If anyone has serious objections to the new structure, please comment below. --Zeno of Elea 11:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Request for archiving.

I'm new to this talk page, but just reading some of this stuff makes me sick. The ammount of irrelivant soapboxing, personal correspondance, and personal attacks, and other breaches of WP:NOT are appalling. Someone archive the dead discussions and everyone for Pete's sake, focus on the damn article.--Tznkai 18:31, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

do go ahead, you just copy-paste stuff to a new subpage, and linkt to it from here. dab (ᛏ) 19:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I would, but I'm not sure which discussions are over.--Tznkai 20:18, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I think all of the discussions are over and ought to be archived, except for everything including and below SlimVirgin's recent section "Paged Protected," and section #6, Talk:Jihad#Request_for_quantification.2C_moved_from_above_where_it_was_buried where User:Farhansher explained the 5 types of Jihad and the Arabic phrases associated with them. --Zeno of Elea 02:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

POV problems

I have not edited this page before but feel compelled to add a POV tag to it. My main reason was when i read this "The classical scholar of Islam, Ibn Taymiyya" - WHAT!!! No no no no. If you are going to use Ibn Taymiyya's quotes you are going to have to explain PROPERLY who he is. He is not, never has been, and never will be an accepted source of any form of Islamic Creed. He thinks God has arms and legs and a head, contrary to the to the beliefs of the overwhelming vast majority of Muslims. Expansion of his thought lead to the idea that the Maddhabs are all Shirk. No, if you are going to bring up quotes by Ibn Taymiyya you are going to have to point out that he is the father of the extremist Salafi And Wahabbi school of thought, not a normal human being nor a universally respected scholar. --Irishpunktom\^talk 14:00, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Irishpunktom, I have added "classical, militant scholar of Islam" and changed the wording a little to better clarify which camp Taymiyya belongs to in regards to the controversy surrounding the hadith (of weak isnad) about the "greater/lesser jihad." It would be incorrect to say that Ibn Taymiyya was a "Wahabbi" (i.e. Salafi), as Ibn Taymiyya lived some five centuries before Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab. Since you say that this was the main reason that you added the POV tag, I am now removing the POV tag. --Zeno of Elea 14:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Also, the article leans heavily to Jihad based on War. This shoud have more about The inner struggle that is Islam. 3 hadiths to further highlight the point I am making and want explored - "... The mujahid is he who makes jihad against himself (jahada nafsah) for the sake of obeying Allah.", "Those who have striven against their desires and repented for our sake, we shall guide them to the ways of sincerity, and one cannot struggle against his enemy outwardly (i.e. with the sword) except he who struggles against these enemies inwardly. Then whoever is given victory over them will be victorious over his enemy. and whoever is defeated by them, his enemy defeats him." and "Shall I tell you something that is the best of all deeds, constitutes the best act of piety in the eyes of your Lord, elevates your rank in the hereafter, and carries more virtue than the spending of gold and silver in the service of Allah, or taking part in jihad and slaying or being slain in the path of Allah?" They said: "Yes!" He said: "Remembrance of Allah." "--Irishpunktom\^talk 14:17, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

The second hadith basically says that inner jihad must precede outward jihad, which has already been stated in the article. The third hadith has the same message as a hadith already included in the article: "`The Prophet, upon him peace, said to Abu Sa`id al-Khudri: "Even if one strikes unbelievers and idolaters with his sword until it breaks, and he is *completely* dyed with their blood, the Rememberers of Allah are above him one degree." This hadith contains in it the message of not only the third hadith you have presented but also the second hadith. As for the first hadith you presented, it is consensus view here that a mujahid is a person engaged in jihad, which includes all the kinds of jihad (including, but not limited to, jihad nafsah). It has also been explained that jihad nafsah must preceed all the other kinds of jihad, so the article does implicitly assert that "... The mujahid is he who makes jihad against himself (jihad nafsah) for the sake of obeying Allah." I feel that the "most exalted deed" section is rather lengthy as it is. Nevertheless, if you want, you can add the first hadith and explain that it means that jihad nafsah must precede any other jihad (this WOULD be repeating something that's already stated in the article but it would add a source to it). Please note that if you do decide to add any hadiths to the article, make sure that you cite where the hadiths comes from. --Zeno of Elea 14:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

As my knowledge of hadith and Islam is thinner than I would like, I can't speak definitivly on what you're discussing, but how I read it is thath Irishpunktom wishes an expansion to the inner spiritual struggle/Jihad sections of the article? If so, why would that be a problem?--Tznkai 15:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

My only concern is that the number of hadith and quran quotes in in "exalted deed" section is already making the size of the section unweildly. The "exalted deed" section is not intended to be about the "inner spiritual struggle/Jihad" (i.e. Jihad bin Nafs). The purpose the "exalted deed" section is twofold: first, to explain that Jihad is considered the greatest deed, and secondly, to explain the different viewpoints in controversy over the "greater/lesser jihad" concepts. As it is, the article identifies 5 types ways of Jihad, but only has a dedicated subsection on one of these 5 ways of Jihad (i.e. there is only a dedicated subsection on Jihad bis saif, meaning "jihad of the sword" or "Jihad as warfare"). If someone wants to start dedicated subsections on other types of Jihad (such as Jihad bin Nafs), then there is no problem in that. But the "exalted deed" section is not a dedicated discussion of "spiritual Jihad," it has a different purpose as I explained. --Zeno of Elea 15:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

In that case, I have two suggestions. First, avoid using direct hadith quotes where possible, as those bloat the article. I suggest using them as refrences. Crystalizations and analysis by notable scholars would probably be preferable, lest we creep into theology or breach WP:NOR.

My second suggestion is to use the active discuss flag instead of the POV, and put expansion requests on this article.--Tznkai 15:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

The quotes should be put into WikiQuotes and the subject matter should be summarized and quotes the should be cited and accessable through WikiQuotes. There is no Wikipedia policy against referencing religious scriptural primary sources (see WP:Reliable sources), and describing the content of the primary source is not necessarily original research. Higher scholarly analysis is always preferable, but I don't know of any such sources relevant to the subject covered by the "exalted deed" section, as this is a rather obscure theological topic. As for expansions requests, I think the current bloat needs to somehow be dealt with before expanding. --Zeno of Elea 16:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

POV Link

It seems to me that having this page link to Robert Spencer's "Jihad Watch" would be a little bit like having the Zionism page link to stormfront.org.

I'm afraid I can't agree with that. Links both pro and con are acceptable.Ni-ju-Ichi 00:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

the "islamthreat" site is much worse. That's really just hateful polemics ("Or how about using vigilantes from the free world, smuggle them into Mecca and send them against the Aqsa mosque and blow the hell out of these places DURING HAJ!!! Finally one of our politicians saying what should be said". Talk about extremists fantasizing about an eschatological showdown). Jihadwatch at least keeps some dignity and rationality. dab (ᛏ) 08:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

this article

can somebody, for pity's sake, run a spellchecker over the article text? This is turning into a sadly hacked together collection of broken English. dab (ᛏ) 08:41, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do later. Sadly, the article attracts many users who are not primarily English speakers by its very nature, especially those who have a highly pro-Islamic POV.Existentializer 15:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I really don't see how attracting a wider community is a bad thing. Secondly, having a POV was never a problem, its the extent that it interferes with article writing that is the problem. Under WP:AGF I am forced to assume that you had a good reason to say what, on face would be a rather wide accusation about other's baises. I invite you to explain or withdraw your statement.--Tznkai 15:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

hell, I've seen the most appalling grammar (or grammer, as they prefer) from native American-English kids. Bad grammar is often a sign of bad content, especially from natives, since these tend to be people here for their pov, not for nicely flowing, balanced and erudite articles. dab (ᛏ) 07:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

WP underattack by followers of Sina's Cult of phobia

Plz make your replies on talk:islam

Previous message left unsigned by Farhansher: there appears to be absolutely no proof to his claims.Ni-ju-Ichi 03:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't use the word "attack" but it is disconcerting to look at that forum and see people encouraging people to add the FFI POV to wikipedia. Also, when they say that they must hide their wikipedia plan I think it's safe to assume that worrying might be a good idea. gren 03:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

as always, Farhansher's rhetorics are a matter of taste. What he did find, and he could just have posted the links, with better effect, is that the anons adding the ffi link are coordinated via the ffi forum. Wikipedia is vulnerable to that sort of tactic, and therefore "attack" is not necessarily an exaggeration. We are wary of single-topic editors, and editors doing nothing except insisting on a particular external links are not very welcome. dab (ᛏ) 07:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

No CIA fronts!

No CIA fronts presented as Muslim pov!

--Striver 01:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Striver, please quit your nonsense. It's really getting old. --ArmadniGeneral 03:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Striver, if you agree to answer my questions about Shiah Islam, I'll believe your conspiracy theory about JihadUnspun.com and the CIA. --Zeno of Elea 04:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Im not after disqualifying your atempt to ad a pro-war page, i don't care much about it, but i will NOT agree to have CIA front posing as a Islamic representatives on wikipedia. You want proof? Go dig them yourself, you will never accept anything i present on that subject, you have made up you mind regarding how much of a lunatic i am. Regarding the vers 66, i wouldn't care for that "exchange", if i would give you that information, it wouldn't be to change "favors", that way below my standard. Not talking that we both know your agenda. But for the sake of truth, i could give it to you, for the sake of truth. Here it goes: So far, i belive in the honey version, there is to much before and after that would be discontinued, it would have a gap, if that episode wherent real. But i could be wrong, i don't know everything about the other version, except that people favorable to you agenda tend to bring it forth. You don't owe me anything for that information.

--Striver 06:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I do not think it is the CIA. I think it is agents of the Mossad. They use their claws to change opinion. Saduj al-Dahij 14:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Whatever you may think, there is no proof. We don't rely on gut instinct much around here. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 00:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

It's the fact that you won't provide any reasonable arguments, which discredits you so much. I made the Google search you referred to. There was absolutely NO CONNECTION made between the owner of the website, and the CIA. Until hard proof is uncovered, stating that this website belongs to the CIA, then you have no basis upon which to remove this link. --ArmadniGeneral 09:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Hm, this is an interesting site, but it is entirely unclear what it is about. It is professionally done, apparently by US-Americans, and it seems to focus on criticizing US foreign policy. The relation to "jihad" appears unclear. Implicitly, they seem to endorse terrorism as a reaction to US atrocities, which would make it an extremist site. But it seems to be entirely secular (war/terrorism in self-defense, unrelated to religious concepts). The absence of fundamentalist religious motives makes it a possibly political extremist website, but not a "jihadist" website. It may be appropriate to link it under War on terrorism as a "critical" website. If you ask me, my suspicion is that this is a site by either extreme left or extreme right US-Americans who dream about a clash of civilizations or an Armageddon. dab (ᛏ) 08:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

dab, JihadUnspun is operated by a woman in western Canada. She owns a web design company called Datacrafters, this is why the website is well done. She converted to Islam after 9/11. The website is a mix of conspiracy theory and sympathetic reporting on Jihad. --Zeno of Elea 08:48, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

fine, thanks, so we have a website by a crackpot convert (ex-Christian?) with internet design skills, and wihout a proper impressum. Essentially a one-woman show? Can we not link this from this article then, please? I mean, Wikipedia always risks to over-represent internet culture. Ali Sina is mostly an internet phenomenon. So is Qur'an alone, apparently. It's ok to document internet culture, but Jihad should be treated as the mostly non-internet phenomenon that it is. Again, on a properly done Opposition to Islam, Ali Sina could be linked with some justification. Similarly, this "jihadunspun" may have a proper place, maybe on War on terrorism. This woman may mean well in her zeal of the newly converted, but that hardly makes here an Islamic scholar or a religious noteworthy. dab (ᛏ) 10:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

"Essentially a one-woman show?" Actually JUS has a number of Muslim writers, it is not a one-woman show. Also, I do not see why you have decided to call someone a "crackpot convert." This seems very far from NPOV. Let me get this straight. As long as a Muslim website concentrates on the "spiritual" Jihad, it's okay. But if a Muslim website considers terrorism to be a part of Jihad, then it is run by the CIA or someother evil non-Muslims pretending to be Muslims. If it is determined that the website is indeed operated by Muslims, then those Muslims are "crackpots," and are only representing "internet culture." That seems really fair (sic)

"This woman may mean well in her zeal of the newly converted, but that hardly makes here an Islamic scholar or a religious noteworthy." First of all, the woman founded the website but she has a staff of several Muslim journalists. Secondly, not everything related to Jihad is scholarly. It is not only scholars who engage in Jihad, and Jihad is more than some dusty old books. Read the article again. Jihad is, by and large, a kind of activism that can become violent as needed. You don't need to be an Islamic scholar to engage in Jihad, and you don't need to be an Islamic scholar to report on those who do engage in Jihad. --Zeno of Elea 23:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

The site has 185 links to it on google. No reason for us to be 186th. The majority of links to it are other blogs, a few sites in foreign languages I cant comprehend, and other questionable notable and intelligent sources. Then again, I have high standards for external links.--Tznkai 19:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah. I don't think its a CIA front. I think its just crock.--Tznkai 19:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Now, that's a good reason not to list it on the article. Now that that's been established, I have no problems with keeping it off. --ArmadniGeneral 07:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

hey, I agreed we could link it from War on terrorism. Take a step back, here. 'jihadunspun' is the domain name, that's all. It doesn't talk about jihad at all. It's stated purpose is criticizing the US "war on terrorism", so that's where it is relevant (if at all). It even seems to accuse the US regime of engaging in "jihad", which is just weird, if anything you would expect accusations of "crusading". Sure, the domain name implicates some oblique relation to the term jihad, but afaics that's not explicated, so I don't see how the site is useful for people looking for external links containing more information about the term jihad. That's just not the focus of the site. It's relevance according to google should have a bearing on whether we link it from War on terrorism, not from here. dab (ᛏ) 07:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to copy and paste my opinion there as well. Questionable quality to begin with, questionable relevance to this article. Kick it out and keep it out.--Tznkai 07:35, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

supportive/critical

seriously, has anyone even read the article? With the complicated, wide range of meanings, you cannot just have "sites critical of" and "sites supportive of" jihad. what jihad? It turns out that the "sites critical of jihad" are anti-jihadist sites. None of them seems particularly oppose to exalted deeds or perfection of faith per se. As it stands, the links section seems to just take for granted the "jihad == terrorism" simplification the article is taking so much pains to put in perspective. Links on this page should discuss the term jihad itself. Sites that use "jihad" uncritically as a synonym for "Islamist terrorism" should be linked, if at all, from Islamist terrorism. dab (ᛏ) 06:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

if you can find us some sites that are pro or con "spiritual jihad," we can list them. also, i dont think that this particular website equates jihad with terrorism. it seems to be about all sorts of politico-military struggles by Muslims. --Zeno of Elea 08:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think the anti-Jihad sites fall into the category of anti-Islam. I can't see them saying one good thing about Islam, and the sites are run by non-Muslims. If we could find a pro-Jihad site to balance it out, then we're good. Otherwise, I think these "critical sites" should go, people could just turn on a TV or something to see criticism. Mr100percent 08:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

"I think these "critical sites" should go, people could just turn on a TV or something to see criticism." yep ... that has nothing (sic) to do with P.O.V. --Zeno of Elea 10:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Academic book on the subject

I'm reading an interesting book through my Questia account: it's called Jihad: The Origin of Holy War in Islam, by Reuven Firestone, Oxford University Press, 1999. I've just started, but this seems like a good solid book so far. Zora 06:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

But Jihad isn't Holy War!!! (sniker) --Zeno of Elea 11:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Its comments like that that make me doubt your ability to remain neutral on these articles Zeno. I'm sad to see that a week later, you're still doing it.--Tznkai 15:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

But Jihad isn't a Holy War! 3,000 people were killed at the WTC dies as part of team communication excersize that went horribly wrong. That book ought to be retitled Jihad: The Origin of the Islamic Struggle for Self Improvment.Klonimus 01:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Holy War in Islam:And it is comments like these, Tznkai, that make me doubt you ability to assume good faith. We are discussing the jihad article here, not your personal views on individual users. I'm sad to see that a week later, you're still doing it... -- Karl Meier 17:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I can accept the criticsm that we should be talking about the Jihad article. WP:AGF does not allow "But Jihad isn't Holy War!!! (sniker)" to be shrugged off as "well, clearly he's acting in good faith, which means he has NO bias and is no way allowing to interfere." Take a goooooood look at the guideline. It extols us to assume that everyone is here to build an accurate neutral article.

Making Jihad=Holy war is not doing that in anyway. I can't find the cite since opening up more than a single window is flummoxing my internet, but I've heard it multiple times from several people that the word Jihad was hijacked by the terrorists. Take a look at Christianity: "Onward Christian soldiers", "the sword of faith", full of militaristic, warlike imagery. Don't get me started on the crusades. Yet, when we talk about a crusade, or Christian soldiers, its an incredible mistake to assume we're talking about a war, terrorism, or other violent action. Further understanding of the history and usages of those terms reveals the depth of meaning, imagery and nuance.--Tznkai 17:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Just to set the record straight, the first thing the book does is attack the presumption that jihad = holy war. The author says that he's interested ONLY in discussing the holy war aspect OF jihad. The title is somewhat misleading, but I'm guessing it was chosen to sell books, not to summarize the contents. It's distressing that Zeno would immediately jump to the conclusion that the title DID accurately reflect the contents, without having looked at the book at all. Zora 21:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

"The title is somewhat misleading, but I'm guessing it was chosen to sell books" You seriously believe that the Oxford University Press would adopt a certain title for a monograph merely to sell more books? What we have identified here is not an attempt by Oxford to sell more books. Rather, what we have identified is the fact that the word "Jihad" is recognized, world-wide, as having a primary meaning of "holy war" and it is used as such by Muslims and non-Muslim laymen, scholars and academics alike. Because this article comes under the name "Jihad", this convention must be ackowledged and respected (as it currently is, by the inclusion of the "Jihad as holy war" section). --Zeno of Elea 03:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Sulami

Karl, I don't get this: How can an early call to religiously motivated warfare be offtopic in a section treating jihad as religiously motivated warfare? the treatise is even called kitab al-jihad the whole point of the book is to make warfare a religious obligation. dab (ᛏ) 14:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course I don't think it's entirely off-topic, but this being said, I strongly doubt that this information is important enough to be mentioned in a section, that is supposed to be concise and discuss the subject in very broad and general terms. Perhabs the information that you have added, would be more useful somewhere in the Offensive Jihad article? -- Karl Meier 14:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

well, I suppose the whole "jihad as holy war" section could be collapsed to a simple "see Offensive Jihad", which wouldn't be such a bad idea. Now the main question is, when did warfare and religious jihad become associated. We know of the four 'jihad' ocurrences in the qur'an. But I surmise that in Muhammad's time, the word simply meant "struggle", without the implications that it would acquire over the centuries to come. If Sulami is the first author to explicitly call for a military jihad, then he is very notable indeed, and it turns out that the concept of offensive jihad is historically a product of the Crusades. I do not know if Sulami is really the first author with this approach, but we do not cite any earlier author here, and it does seem that his idea was avant garde, and changed the meaning of the word in the course of the 12th century. The Crusader states were crumbling by 1200, and then the Turks appeared, so that the political situation was really different 1200-1800, and it seems the term as discussed today was really formed during that time. dab (ᛏ) 15:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Military jihad isn't something that Ali ibn Tahir al-Sulami or anyone else suddenly made up. It go back all the way to Muhammad. See Bukharis hadith collection. It has 199 references to "jihad" and all of them assume that jihad means warfare. -- Karl Meier 17:31, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

dab, if you have actually read the article, you will know that "jihad as holy war" is more than just Offensive Jihad. It would be a disservice to this article (and a fanatical censorship of information) for this article to not briefly discuss Jihad as holy war (as it currently does). You claim that Ali ibn Tahir al-Sulami is the first to concieve of militant Jihad is completely false. The Qur'an itself calls for militant Jihad. War is a part of "Jihad" and always has been, except perhaps the Meccan period of Muhammad life during which he did not have an army at his disposal. As for your claim that "the concept of offensive jihad is historically a product of the Crusades," this is absolute rubbish. The classical Muslim legal scholars codified the doctrine of Offensive Jihad before the First Crusade. Muhammad and his closest companions fought offensive Jihad (i.e. holy wars for conquest) themselves. They and their successors rapidly expanded the Islamic empire from a small movement in Medina to a vast empire of epic proportions. The Fisrst Crusade was launched in response to Muslim holy wars of conquests against Byzantine territories (in particular, it was promoted as a response to the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem). Please get your facts straight, and also please realize that this article is not about the history of militant Islam. --Zeno of Elea 03:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

What I see here is User:Heraclius taking us on the path of edit wars again. The content of article has been stable for quite some time now. I would recommend that any major changes (i.e. more than the addition of one sentence) should be done in a well thought-out way with prior discussion and the creation of one or more new sections (the content of existing sections should remain relatively stable). --Zeno of Elea 03:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

What I see here is you making things up, as usual. I'm sure you, as an expert mathemitician, can count that I have only done 2 minor edits to this article in the past 2 days. Heraclius 03:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

We're talking about your addition of the bit about Ali ibn Tahir al-Sulami. It is not relevant to this article. (a) There are much earlier instances of Islamic holy war, in the history books, and (b) this is not an article about the history of Islamic holy war. --Zeno of Elea 04:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Zeno, I'm really trying to make this easy for you. I have made two edits to the article recently, this was one [3] , and this was the other [4].Heraclius 04:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh I'm sorry Heraclius. I guess it was dab who added the stuff about Sulami. --Zeno of Elea 04:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Zeno, this article is far from finished. There is hardly any historical context. The "The exalted deed" section is unreadable. You have no business to remove stuff on Sulami. He wasn't the earliest to call for jihad, but pre-fitna 'jihad' was surely a different concept. Add material on the history of the time preceding Sulami, don't just throw out badly needed historical information. dab (ᛏ) 09:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

"Zeno, this article is far from finished ...The "The exalted deed" section is unreadable." I did not say that the article is finished. PLease feel free to make the content of this section more readable if you can.

"There is hardly any historical context." If you believe that the "history of Jihad" has to be discussed, then we must ask (a) which kinds of Jihad are we going to write a history of, and then (b) what time-frame of history will be considering and why. Once this is decided, we can create a new section or subsection in order to accomodate such information. You seem to only be interested in history of the holy war type Jihad. You have concentrated on only one event. This is an extraordinarly selective telling of history and is transparently designed to promote an agenda of historical revisionism designed to absolve Islam of its history of imperialism. You are not adding a history of Jihad, you are merely pushing a POV by selectively referring to a single historical event. It is also completely incorrect of you state that it was only in the time of Saladin that "Muslim rulers would not merge the concept of jihad with military expeditions." This is completely incorrect, it is apologetic nonsense, and is has no source.

"He wasn't the earliest to call for jihad," ANd who, praytell, was the earliest to "call for Jihad"?

"pre-fitna 'jihad' was surely a different concept." Evidence? Proof? Do you have any idea how many years span the time between the fitna and the life of Ali ibn Tahir al-Sulami? What exactly about Jihad changed after the fitna and what proof of this do you bear?

"Add material on the history of the time preceding Sulami, don't just throw out badly needed historical information." You have not merely added historical information. You made a factually incorrect statement, as I have pointed out above. In addition to this, you have chosen to add a highly selective historical event: the Muslim response to the First Crusade. This is transparently designed to make it sound as if Jihad as warfare only began with Sulami and Saladin, after the First Crusade. Adding historical information to this article is a terrible idea. Will be including in London bombings? Will we be including Salafi terrorism in Saudi Arabia? Will we be including Muhammad's wars? Will be including the wars of the Four Rightly Guided Caliphs? Will be including the wars of the Ummayads, Abbasids, Ottomans, Fatamids, etc. etc.? Will we include the three wars fought between India and Pakistan? Will we include Palestinian terrorism?

"You have no business to remove stuff on Sulami. " Your stuff on Sulami is nothing but POV pushing. It adds nothing else to the article. If you want to add a historical review of Jihad, then write the whole thing and then insert it. Your stuff on Sulami is transparent propoganda and is based on a blatently false thesis. I will remove it again for these reasons. You have no business adding this sort of POV pushing nonsense into this article. If you were sincere about adding historical information to this article you begin at the begining. Start with adding Muhammad's holy wars, and work chronologically forward. Selectively chosing to describe a single event (that, by no mere coincidence, coincides with the First Crusade) is unacceptable. --Zeno of Elea 10:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

the Streusand article is an excellent example of how this article could look. "stable" my ~~ass~~ eye. If you want to be useful, paraphrase more material from there rather than mutilating an already pathetic article. dab (ᛏ) 10:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I skimmed over the article that you have referenced. It has some information that this article lacks (particularly, it has a lot of information about Jihad as warfare that is decidedly ommited form this article because of protests that the article was concentrating on Jihad as warfare too much - recall your own recent (demented) recommendation to delete the whole Jihad as warfare section and just make it a link to Offensive Jihad). However, the WIkipedia article contains information on spiritual importance placed on Jihad in the theological terms (i.e. greatness of the deed, etc.) and this article also contains a far more detailed description of the different types of Jihad. There is no reason to make this article a systematicly paraphrased copy of a single article of your chosing. If you want to make yourself useful, try to add something substantial and factually correct to the article instead of pathetic attempts to sneak in ridiculous propoganda about the doctrine of Islamic holy war being caused by the First Crusade. --Zeno of Elea 10:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

it was not a recommendation. it was in reaction to your (demented) opinion that any historical material belongs on there. pay attention, at least, if you must be a WP:DICK. I have no intention of implying that there was no jihad prior to the Crusades. However, prior to the Crusades, it was not directed against Christians, and wound up with the fitna. The article has been linked by User:Karl Meier, who has kindly drawn my attention to it. See his talk page for my reply, and for evidence that I am perfectly aware that jihad referred to what was essentially inner-Arabic endemic warfare. Information that I would include here, if you could stop making a perfect fool of yourself for half an hour. dab (ᛏ) 10:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

"I have no intention of implying that there was no jihad prior to the Crusades." I'm going to assume that by "jihad" you mean Islamic holy war

"However, prior to the Crusades, it was not directed against Christians, and wound up with the fitna." You have made to claims here, by which you have made a fool of yourself. As the timeline of Muhammad states, in 629 CE Muhammad commanded an attack against the Byzantine Empire. Specifically, the Muslims attempted to attack the city of Mu'ata (which was then part of the colony of Palestine). The Byzantine Empire was, of course, Christian. So your statement, that Muslim attacks were not directed against Christians prior to the Crusades, is blatently false (one has to wonder what is motivating you to make such false and unsourced statements). In fact, Muslims historically directed their attacks in every direction where non-Muslims were to be found in large numbers. Furthermore, your statement that "it wound up with the fitna" is incoherent. --Zeno of Elea 11:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

yes, there were Xian-Muslim clashes before the crusades. No, by 'jihad' I mean jihad, not "holy war", whatever that is. Look, I have work to do, on and off Wikipedia (check my recent contributions). You are not to engage in unproductive reverting, but to suggest ways on how to procede. I remind everyone that we are here to make this article better, not to score points. Zeno is reasonably knowledgeable, but he undoes any good that would do with his despicable behaviour. I also remind you of the concept of writing for the enemy (read it!). I have no hope of fruitful collaboration with Zeno. Karl Meier, otoh, who appears to have a position roughly comparable, has shown a much more productive approach. I therefore suggest that Karl should voice his opinion of the situation, and his view of how to proceed with the article, in the section below. dab (ᛏ) 13:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Frankly Dab, eventhough I respect you and your opinions and efforts, I still think that you are getting yourself into some deep water here. As I see it, the discussion here isn't really just about POV or something that can be solved by "writing for the enemy". It's mainly about some plain (historical) facts, and some of the things you are saying here just doesn't make sense. That the concept of militant jihad go back to Muhammad, and that jihad was also fought against (among others) Christians and Jews is not something that we can discuss, because it's just a historical fact. These things being said, I still think we have some good points here, one of them being the need for a historical section in this article. I'm not really sure if I can fully support the TOC that you suggested, but a new section that discuss the history of militant jihad, including the more recent history (Jihad as Warfare in Modern Times), might very well be a good idea. -- Karl Meier 16:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

there seems to be a misunderstanding. I never wanted to imply that militant jihad becan in the 12th century. My aim was (and is) to provide historical background. The reason I began at 1100 was that I checked the scholars from see also, and Sulami was the earliest of these. I.e. I was expanding the content of the 'see also', referring to the the earliest Islamic treatise on the concept of jihad that was available to me. I later changed my misleading wording to 'an early call to jihad'. At no point did I try to imply that jihad began at 1100, nor that I was finished with the article. I was rather hoping people would begin to contribute to the story prior to 1100, but Zeno preferred to jump all over me. Karl, I am looking forward to your suggestion as to how to structure the article, and I am confident you will improve the present half-finished state. I am pretty tired of Zeno's hostility and bad faith, so I think I will take a wikibreak from this article now. dab (ᛏ) 17:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we should change the structure or content of the article significantly. As it is now, I think it actually does a good job, educating it's readers about the "diverse Islamic concept of Jihad". Some expainsion would be nice though, and two new sections about subjects such as "Jihad as Warfare in Modern Times" and "The history of militant jihad" would in my opinion be a good idea. -- Karl Meier 19:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions/direction

This article is wavering on the line between useful and useless. I will ignore neutral and/or accurate for the time being, but we really need to figure this out. My suggestion is we all agree to write the damn article with cooperation (obviously), and then procede to set down certain definitions that everyone agrees to.

Certain questions and topics need to be answered in the article, in full, with all the significant views represtented.

What does Jihad actually mean?

That's already explained in the article: "to exert utmost effort, to strive, struggle". You should also try to read the "The diverse Islamic concept of Jihad" section. Karl Meier 19:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I have read the article. I'm just saying we all need to come to an agreement on it.--Tznkai 19:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

How is the world Jihad actually used?
Current Events relating to Jihad

We had a section about that in the article most recently, but for some reason it was removed. Maybe we could include some of the old material again? There old section is avaliable here: User:Karl_Meier/workspace. I've tried to make it more NPoV by deleting what I thought was the more controversial parts. Karl Meier 19:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Entymology of the word Jihad
- did you mean: Entomology :p dab (ᛏ)

I think that is already discussed sufficiently in the article. Karl Meier 19:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

See above: This is a design for the article, not a list of things to fix.--Tznkai 19:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

History of Jihad. (all things that have been called a Jihad, especially then, but also retrospectivly)

I agree. It would be interesting to have a section about the long history of (militant) Jihad. Karl Meier 19:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

What religious Significance of Jihad to Muslims.
What is the religious significance of Jihad to non-muslims?

What do you mean? Jihad is an islamic religious concept. It doesn't have any religious significance to any other religion I guess.. Karl Meier 19:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Crusade is a Christian theological concept. Try saying it to a Muslim well versed in history and see what happens. Thats where Iwas going with it.--19:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Comparision to similar Religious topics

There is a "Similar concepts in other religions and in secularism" in the see also section. That should be enough in my opinion. Karl Meier 19:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Before we start worrying more about the fork articles (offensive and defensive Jihad) lets get an organization down pat, shall we?--Tznkai 17:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Why exactly do you call it "fork articles"? Please explain this attack on the work and efforts of other editors. -- Karl Meier 19:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Fork Articles, sub articles, main articles, spin off articles things that relate to the main topic directly but are large enough to be split off?--Tznkai 19:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh! I'm sorry! English is (as it is obvious) not my first language, and I thought that it meant something negative. Now I know better, thank you! Anyway, I think there is plenty of material for both articles to discuss. Also, both of them seems reasonably well developed already, and there is still room for improvement and expansion. -- Karl Meier 19:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

As I said. We need to establish the main article before forking it. otherwise the organization gets all wonky --Tznkai 19:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I spent a good deal of time cleaning up the article, greatly improving on the work that I had started, and then Irishpunktom decided to revert all of my edits. And once Irishpunktom reverted, Tznkai and dab start complaining about the content of the OLD version of the article, completely ingore the fact that it has been rewritten since then (despite Irishpunktom's reverting the rewritten version). As for Tznkai's claim that "we need to establish the main article before forking it," this is rubbish. A few weeks ago Tznkai & friends were trying to delete huge portions of the article (e.g. prisoners of war, etc., etc.) because of their contention that "Jihad is not holy war." Now that significant concessions have been made and most of the content has been moved into seperate articles, we now have the same people clamoring about wanting to put the content BACK into this article. Rubbish. --Zeno of Elea 08:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Zeno. You do not own this article. Everyone has put hard work into it. Etc etc etc. There, you've lectured me, I've lectured you.

Ignoring all of that, can we move on now and try to cooperate? TINC against you. The way I do things is diffrent from the way other people do things, and is diffrent from the way you do things. There are two sets of organization proposals above. Mine is designed to provide the internal structure of each section, while the above is designed to show the external structure. Start from scratch, build what you want the article to look like, then see how much of the old you can shuffle back into it. Its usually a lot. Its also usually better.

My own writing has been subjected to this by others and by myself. It happens. Its usually a good thing.--Tznkai 14:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

When and where has Zeno claimed to be the owner of the article? I think you should substantiate your allegations, or end your constant use of personal remarks regarding other editors, that are making a real effort. You behavior is not helping on the situation here. Also, why did you add the active discuss tag again? Can you specify exactly what statements that you find "may be disputed or dubious", so that we can address your concerns? -- Karl Meier 14:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

The comment I replied to had numerous allusions to all the hard work Zeno put in. My point was, so have others. I never said he did own it, or he thought he owned it, merely reminded him that he does not. The point is, its a community project, and an individual's hard work is nice, but is ultimatly irrelivant. As for the personal comments bit, I admit that there are problably more diplomatic ways of going about this, but I maintain Zeno could also stand to stop making personal comments, attacks, and broad statements on what are contentions are. Whether he does or not, I will do my part to avoid escalation.

The first line of the Active Discusss template indiactes that the article is under development or review. Inotherwords, it is highly unstable. The number of reversisons going back and forth should make that obvious to all of us. Until it settles down, we need to flag it.

To settle it down, I personally think we need to agree on a direction and organization first.--Tznkai 14:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

"The comment I replied to had numerous allusions to all the hard work Zeno put in. My point was, so have others." Tznkai, you seem to have trouble understanding what it is I'm saying. I was pointing out that dab and yourself spent a great deal of time discussing the old version of the article, even though dab watched me revise the article (before it was reverted by the anon). THAT is what I was pointing out, I was not pointing out "all the hard work" that I put in. --Zeno of Elea 16:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Understood, filed and disagreed with. This is refering to the edit conflicts, not the "old version"--Tznkai 16:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

"Zeno. You do not own this article. Everyone has put hard work into it. Etc etc etc. There, you've lectured me, I've lectured you. Ignoring all of that, can we move on now and try to cooperate?" Tznkai, you are being uncooperative, and frankly you are editing in bad faith (your entire contribution is to flamebait and to insert a ridiculous "under construction" tag into the article while vaugly referring to "disputes with Zeno"). Yes, I do not own the article. I did not say that I own the article and I am not "lecturing" you. Please stop wasting everyone's time with such juvenile commentary. Do you have anything to contribute, other than personal remarks about others and silly tags that try to discredit the article? --Zeno of Elea 16:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

the above comments questions and suggestions on article organization.--Tznkai 16:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Revised Article

I have revised the article. Firstly, the section headings have been made more comprehensable and professional. "Diverse concept of Jihad" has been changed to "Different usages", since the section discusses different usages of the word. "The exalted deed" has been changed to "General theological issues" because they deal with the over-all general concept of Jihad. Also the whole "exalted deed" section has been scaled down and re-written - I have removed all the lengthy quotations from primary sources, and I agree with dab when he said that the (old) "exalted deed" section was "barely readable." I think it is much more concise and readable now, and the sources have been cited (instead of actually pasting the sources into the article). Now, for some reason, Irishpunktom, Heraclius, and an anonymous user are trying to revert back to the older, inferior version of the article, without any explanation. --Zeno of Elea 16:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Tznkai's TotallyDisputed tag

User:Tznkai has added a "TotallyDisputed" tag to the article. He has not explained what part of the article he (or anyone else) thinks is POV or factually incorrect. I have started this talk section so that User:Tznkai can explain what parts of the article he thinks are have POV and which parts of the article are factually incorrect. --Zeno of Elea 16:37, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Since people don't like the ActiveDiscuss flag, I've gone with Total Dispute instead.

Problems

1. The amount of reverting is making the article hard to keep track of whether it is accurate or not.

2. POV. Each section tends to be very argumenative, taking us away from NPOV. POVs are not attributed properly

3. Accuracy: as much as a problem of prose as a problem with research, the concepts are not introduced properly. Jihad is more than merely a word, its a concept with many means to many people.

Those are the basics. Details will come soon--Tznkai 16:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

1. There is not much reverting going on. dab was trying to insert something about the crusades, that led to one set of reverts (which now seems to have ended), and I described other reverts above in the talk section titled "Revised Article." If you are have difficulty keeping track of article content, then this is your own problem, not anyone else's. You have yet to explain what about the article is inaccurate.

2. "Each section tends to be argumentative"? What the hell does that even mean? In the absense of any details, this guy's arguments hold no water.

3. "Accuracy: Concepts are not introduced properly" - again, more vauge bullshit without any details or evidence. And again Tznkai has not pointed out a single incorrect fact in the article, yet he is insisting that the article is factually incorrect.

"Details to come" -- Tznkai, bring your details, and THEN try to insert your malicious tags. --Zeno of Elea 16:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

For starters: The lead is confusing as hell. It doesn't signify the importance of Jihad being used as a term to describe holy wars, especially in the context of Islamist terrorism. It doesn't quite specify that while the term can be used to declare a holy war, what conditions must apply. These are all important for the lead. (POV and accuracy concern)--Tznkai 16:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

If by "lead" you mean the introductory pargraphs, then yes i agree that they need to be rewritten. Jihad does indeed commonly mean "holy war," both in Muslim and non-Muslim discourse (both at the laymen and academic level), but I don't know what you mean by "in the context of Islamist terrorism." The conditions for holy war do not belong in the introductory title, and they are discussed in Defensive Jihad and Offensive Jihad. --Zeno of Elea 16:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for those "details," User:Tznkai. --Zeno of Elea 01:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

in the middle of two minor crisis (crisi? Crisises?) on other articles. Hold your horses until tomorrow morning EST.--Tznkai 01:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

um. the word you are looking for is "crises." --Zeno of Elea 02:42, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

12 days, Tznkai has had the articled locked without giving the "details" explaining his actions that he intitially promised to give. Since then he has apparently declared that he is too busy IRL to give the details. I think it makes sense, then, to unlock the article. --Zeno of Elea 07:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Page Protection:

I have requested this page be protected. The history here [6] shows several series of complex reversions, suggesting a slow moving, but significant edit war.

So could we all please start listing what the disputes are? For my part, I am involved in:

ActiveDiscuss/TotalDispute flags
Organization of the entire article

What else is there?--Tznkai 16:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

This is not helping. Are you capable of speaking about specific details, or do you always only talk in generalities? --Zeno of Elea 17:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

This is just a list of editor disputes Zeno, so we can discuss them and get the article unprotected again.--Tznkai 17:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Need to take a break from this article because of increased RL responsibilities. If you wish the page to be unprotected, I won't be around to object--Tznkai 18:07, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Interwiki

Pleas add tr:Cihad and ar:جهاد Marriex 12:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Good article, more books

There is a very interesting article by Max Rodenbeck in the August 11 issue of the New York Review of Books. The article is a review of the following books:

Osama, Jonathan Randal
Globalized Islam, Olivier Roy
The War for Muslim Minds, Gilles Kepel
Understanding Terror Networks, Marc Sageman
Landscapes of the Jihad, Faisal Devji

The author of the review has a viewpoint, which he sees as corroborated by the books he reviews -- he believes that the current Islamist militancy, far from being an expression of some inherent defect in Islam as a religion (which he describes as the neocon viewpoint), is in fact a rebellion of globalized, deracinated Muslim young men against their more traditionalist fathers. It's a Muslim version of the Black Brigades, SDS, etc. I thought it quite interesting that the "liberals" of the NYRB should be putting forward a POV that I also saw eloquently expressed by David Brooks, the conservative columnist for the New York Times (the author of the biting take on yuppies, something-something-Bohos).

I dunno if this article, or these books, would change any minds here, but I thought I'd give it a try. Zora 08:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

This is total BS. Gilles Kepel is an idiot. This has absolutely nothing to do with secular liberalism and secular conservatism. There are fools on both sides of the political spectrum. Jihad is a tradition in Islam. The so-called "traditionalist" fathers who would rather immigrate to Western countries and worry about their own personal bank balances are, in fact, the anti-traditionalists as far as Islamic tradition goes. The truth is that these authors are (in their zeal for political correctness) attempting to hide the emperical fact that Islam is a warrior religion that was spread by warriors at the point of a sword. And might I remind you that the neocon view is that Islam is a "religion of peace." --Zeno of Elea 11:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Ghandi does not agree with you: Mahatma Ghandi, in his book "The Young Indian", wrote

"Muslims have never indulged themselves in bigotry even in times of greatest grandeur and victory...I have read the books telling about the life-style of the Prophet of Islam and of those who were close to him. I have arrived at the conclusion that Islam's spreading rapidly was not by the sword. On the contrary, it was primarily owing to its simplicity, logicality, its Prophet's great modesty, his trueness to his promises and his unlimited faithfulness towards every Muslim that many people willigly accepted Islam" [7]

But i gues you belive he was brainwashed or something... --Striver 12:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Gandhi was a politician, not a scholar. Not only as Gandhi a politician, he was the leading politician of the Indian subcontinent - a land mass that, combined, is home to the largest Muslim population in the world and is still dwarfed by its Hindu population. Quoting Gandhi on this subject is like saying that the economy is not doing poorly just because Alan Greenspan publicly says such and such about the economy. Gandhi is not an authoratative source of information on this subject, and but this is not the first time that I have seen this quote from Gandhi -- it appears in many collections of "quotes about islamic civilization" on the internet. According to the history books, Muhammad and the early Muslims founded the Islamist state through warfare, and expanded it through wars of conquest. This Arab imperial expansion continued for centuries, and reached everywhere from India and China to France and Italy; this practice was later dubbed Offensive Jihad by Islamic scholars of jurispudence, and formed one of the central tenants and driving forces of Islam as a political movement. This was not only a military imperialism but also a cultural, religious and linguistic imperialism in the form of the Islamic religion. Posting sensationlist quotes from someone such as Gandhi is not academic. Perhaps Gandhi was unaware that according to the history book, Umar ibn al-Khattab himself sent an invading force against the Sindh but his particular force was defeated, though the Muslim would indeed again attack the Indian subcontinent. Trying to cover up Islam's bloody past is a monumental task that will require more than a quote from Mohandas Gandhi, of all people. --Zeno of Elea 12:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I think this article provide some excellent answers for some of the above questions: islam Q&A: Was Islam spread by the sword? -- Karl Meier 13:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Karl, that's a Salafi/Wahabi site. OF COURSE they're in favor of violent jihad against the kufar -- otherwise they'd have to disavow the actions of the Saudis in conquering Arabia and evicting the Hashemites from Mecca and Medina. Those Sunni princes were defined as kufar for political purposes. Of course, Salafis are non-sectarian and good Sunnis NOW, when it suits their purposes. I don't like them, as you can see, but neither do a lot of Muslims.

I was googling for something the other day and came across a fascinating discussion on Sunniforum about how to identify Salafi/Wahabi-leaning clerics and books so as to avoid them. A list of suspect sheikhs/scholars was given, and then the general advice, "If it's beautifully produced and very colorful, it's probably Salafi, stay away from it". I thought that was fascinating -- Saudi oil money at work, concocting colorful lures for unwary Sunni! Zora 10:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

sighs* yeah, Salafis are not the totality of Islam and it's not going to work trying to portray them as such. Zora, I have the idiot's book since it's required for one of my classes and hopefully in the future I will get around to maybe adding something from it. gren グレン 10:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

"Karl, that's a Salafi/Wahabi site." argumentum ad hominem. --Zeno of Elea 19:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
"-- otherwise they'd have to disavow the actions of the Saudis in conquering Arabia and evicting the Hashemites from Mecca and Medina." this is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard you say, Zora. (a) the so-called "wahabis" are not all aligned with the saudi royal family, in fact many are fiercly opposed to the royal family. (b) arabs have been conquering Arabia and beyond for over a millenium. The House of Saud fought against the Ottomans and their pawns in order to make Arabia independant of Ottoman control. The House of Saud used Islamic religious justification for imperialism in order to advance their imperialist cause amongst the people, just as the Ottomans used Islamic religious justification for imperialism in order to advance their imperialist cause amongst the people, just as the Abbasids used Islamic religious justification for imperialism in order to advance their imperialist cause amongst the people, just as the Ummayads used Islamic religious justification for imperialism in order to advance their imperialist cause amongst the people, just as the four "rightly guided caliphs" used Islamic religious justification for imperialism in order to advance their imperialist cause amongst the people, and just as Muhammad used Islamic religious justification for imperialism in order to advance his imperialist cause amongst the people. --Zeno of Elea 19:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
"If it's beautifully produced and very colorful, it's probably Salafi, stay away from it". This is an equally ridiculous statement, Zora. You have no understanding of the sort of Muslims who admit that Islam involves imperialism and advocate such imperialism. Such Muslims, be they Wahabi or Deobandi or whatever, are almost invariably fiercly opposed to the Saudi Royal family. Your insinuation that the Saudi government is funding websites dedicated to promoting Muslim fundamentalism is beyond the pale, it is a truly laughable conspiracy theory. You really don't understand much about Saudi Arabia or about Muslim fundamentalists. Zora, I am amazed that despite being well read, you still seem to be completely unaware of the well-known fact that the earliest written sources of Islam (and those which followed them) all gave legal sanction to wars of aggression against non-Muslims in the name of Islam. What do you think jizyah is? What is Offensive Jihad? Where did the Islamic empires come from? Please get a grip on reality, and stop resorting to the tired old ad hominem canard of labeling any Muslims who advocate traditional Islamic fundamentalism as being "Wahabis" funded by the Saudi royal family. I think you would know better than most people that ad hominuem arguments are a type of logical fallacy. --Zeno of Elea 19:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

How is jizyah relevant? In the medieval Caliphate, jizyah was just the non-Muslim equivalent of zakat. It was a tax, pure and simple. Non-Muslims were forced to pay it as Muslims were forced to pay zakat. If they served in the military, they were exempt from it. By the way, it has been proven that the Saudi royal family funds Wahhabis around the world.Heraclius 21:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

firstly, we know that zakat is a 2.5% per annum wealth tax while jizya was closer to a 10% per annum wealth tax. furthermore, with jizya came dhimmitude. the muslims systematicaly threatened countries of the "people of the book" (jews and christians) and gave them an ultimatem: they had to convert to islam, or surrender soverignity of their country to the caliphate and pay the taxes it imposes on them, or face wars of aggression and conquest. thus the jizya was an integral part of the islamic expansionist ideology. --Zeno of Elea 06:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Jizya and zakat

Zeno stated that zakat was only 2.5% and jizya was 10%. No sources given. From what I know of the finances of pre-modern states, taxes were often "farmed" to local magnates who levied as much as they could get without causing armed revolt. Circumstances varied from place to place and year to year. It's quite possible that the jizya was usually higher than the zakat -- but Muslim apologists stress that dhimmis were spared the obligatory military service. Of course, this only applies to the early years of Islam, before rulers started relying on slave warriors or mercenary tribesmen. Zeno, could you discuss your sources for this blanket statement? Zora 06:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

It does not matter how much the jizya was or how much taxes local tax collectors collected, or whether or not dhimmis were allowed into the Muslim army.

OK, you can't answer me, so you're changing the subject. Zora 08:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The subject is not jizya, it is Jihad. The reason that jizya is relevant is because the fact that it was practiced and is mentioned and defined in the Qur'an proves that the Islamic doctrine of war was inherently aggressive and expansionist. I am afraid that you are the one who is trying to change the subject - hell you even started a new section to subvert the previous one and start talking about how much exactly jizya was. I can prove using reliable sources that the jizya tax was greater than the zakat tax, but the actual jizya rate is totally irrelevant to what I saying about jizya. Heraclius asked why jiyza is relevant, and so this is about the fact that jizya was practiced, and what its practice implies, not how much the jizya rate was. --Zeno of Elea 02:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The fact of the matter that is under dispute is that the Islamic state was by its very nature an expansionist state. The Islamic law sanctions a state that seeks to subjugate non-Musims by making them "dhimmis." Why should a Persian living under Persian soverignity one day wake up to find himself a "dhimmi" living under the foreign soverignity of a clan of Muhammad's tribe, the Quraysh, and paying them taxes? Technically, that is wanton imperialism, of which wars of aggression are an existential part. Note that the basic Islamic doctrine of war, including the concept of jizya, is found in the Qur'an. --Zeno of Elea 06:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

"Of course, this only applies to the early years of Islam, before rulers started relying on slave warriors or mercenary tribesmen." I'm not sure what you are referring to, but the first Musilm ruler to rely on mercenary tribesmen was Muhammad. This is evident from the Qur'an, hadith and Sira. A major theme in the Qur'an, and indeed all of Islam, is "the hypocrites." The hypocrites surrounding Muhammad are a major theme in the Sira. The fact that Muhammad's military exploits relied a great deal on mercenary tribesmen can be seen from the fact, according to the Muslim history books, shortly after Muhammad died his successor, Abu Bakr waged the so-called "Wars of Apostasy" in which Abu Bakr crushed a large number of tribes that were militarily allied with Muhammad but who renounced Islam after Muhammad's death and went back their pagans ways. These were mercenaries who, when proven to be mercenaries, were either crushed or forced to submit to Islam (see article about Abu Bakr). It is therefore evident that Muhammad relied on mercenary tribesmen. --Zeno of Elea 06:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I should have given examples. I'm thinking of the Abbassid caliphs, who increasingly relied on various Turkic tribes as their military. Much like the later Roman empire, enlisting various "barbarian" tribes as auxiliaries. Zora 08:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

take a look at http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/j/ji/jizyah.htm, it says : "Jizyah was applied to every free adult male member of the (Click link for more info and facts about People of the Book) People of the Book, and/or non-Muslim living in lands under Muslim rule. There was no amount permanently fixed for it, though the payment usually depended on wealth: the Kitab al-Kharaj of Abu Yusuf (quoted in Stillman, Norman: The Jews of Arab Lands: A History and Source Book (Philadelphia, Jewish Publication Society of America, 1979 pp. 159–160)) sets the amounts at 48 (Worth one tenth of a Kuwaiti dinar; equal 100 fils) dirhams for the richest (e.g. moneychangers), 24 for those of moderate wealth, and 12 for craftsmen and manual laborers. Females, children, the poor, and hermits were exempt from it. The disabled and elderly were exempt unless they were independently wealthy, as were (A pauper who lives by begging) mendicant (A male religious living in a cloister and devoting himself to contemplation and prayer and work) monks—those living in productive monasteries had to pay. Historically Muslim rulers also attempted to collect jizyah from (A person who adheres to Hinduism) Hindus, (An adherent of Sikhism) Sikhs and (Follower of Zoroaster and Zoroastrianism) Zoroastrians under their rule. The collection of the tax was often the duty of the elders of those communities."

So it doesn't look like there is a set percentage of tax, and seesms to function (somewhat) like an income tax. As for being killed for not paying it, well; if I quit paying my taxes where I live I go to prison.I have heard from various sources that say it was usually less than the zakat, while others say it was more. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.57.47.163 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 27 August 2005.

you do realize, of course, that this link is a mirror of Wikipedia's jizyah? dab (ᛏ) 14:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected

It's been protected for weeks and weeks and weeks. There is no ongoing discussion. Time to edit, I think. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 09:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

capitalization

What is the standard for capitalizing this word in English? Is it a proper noun always, only in some cases, or never? The article mixes uppercase Jihad and lowercase jihad without any apparent rhyme or reason. —Charles P. (Mirv) 22:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

~~I'm pretty sure it's not a proper noun... I see no reason that it would be, it's like fiqh or any other of the Islamic juristic terms from Arabic. gren グレン 22:40, 24 September 2005 (UTC)~~ Okay, I looked into some of my books (the better more scholarly ones are at nother location) and it seems to me that it can go either way maybe (although I still believe more lower case). However, if jihad is capitalized then so are all of the other words like Fiqh, or Mujahid, etc. So, the question is not just for jihad, it's for whether or not we want all of the Islamic terms in Arabic to be capitalized when we right them here. My solution would be a big no since we don't do that for every other language and... well, it juse seems silly. I will look at some of my other better books when I get home but... umm, I just went onto Amazon and read the Fazlur Rahman book... he doesn't capitalize zakat (he also has the good sense to use diacritics). That is personally what I think we should do. gren グレン 23:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

"However, if jihad is capitalized then so are all of the other words like Fiqh, or Mujahid, etc. So, the question is not just for jihad, it's for whether or not we want all of the Islamic terms in Arabic to be capitalized when we right them here."

I strongly disagree. "Jihad" should be capitalized not because it is an Islamic term, rather it should be capitalized for the same reasons that we capitalize "Word War I" or "The Crusades." --Zeno of Elea 07:43, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

"World War I" and "The Crudades" were an actual event, therefore they are proper nouns. Words such as jihad and crusade, I think should not be capitalized, but we'll have to keep looking. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 14:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

By comparing it to WWI and the Crusades, Zeno seems to be saying that "jihad" is always a proper noun. Writing of "a World War I", however, is nonsensical, and when writing about "a crusade", the C is only capitalized if one is referring to one of these. However, one can write with equal facility of "a jihad" (for example a jihad on drugs) and "the jihad". Which jihad, if any, always gets a capital J? —Charles P. (Mirv) 16:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

WWII jihad

Here's a reference for the uncited text about the Soviet Muslim declaration of jihad in WWII, which was removed due to lack of citation. The fact might not be appropriate for this overview article but I'm sure an appropriate place can be found for it somewhere. —Charles P. (Mirv) 16:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

How about we be fair and also include the Nazi Muslim declaration of Jihad during WWII? --Zeno of Elea 01:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Zeno's edits

are inappropriate. BrandonYusufToropov 01:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Your edits (if we can call them that) are inappropriate. -- Zeno of Elea 14:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

US government definition is now part of the article

This might come as a surprise to editors accustomed to the word being defined solely in the domain of religiousity. However, the term is not limited to its religious definition, it now has an official secular definition and that has been added to the article. --CltFn 04:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The US department of state is not a secular definition and it has no authority to define a belief in Islam. As such that does not make it notable in the article. Maybe we should have the Nazi party define Jewish belief? So please don't insert material you know is inappropriate. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 15:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

The US department of state definition is relevant to this article. When are you going to quite trying to force your religious views on the wikipedia articles. This is a secular encyclopedia and all sourced and factually verified material on the topics in question are valid inserts. --CltFn 15:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the US definition is sourced, it isn't notable. And similarly you aren't even just including the definition but reverting into a version that actually moves certain sections UP, breaking apart sections and changing several things to POV as if you have some sort of authority in what Islamic belief is. [8]. Can you edit, rather than revert so this doesn't end in a page lock like you did last time? If this is the only section that you want to add then discuss it and add it. Don't get sneaky and put other POV into the article. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 15:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Stay tuned to the Orwell Network, and watch as the US government imposes its official definition of person. BrandonYusufToropov 15:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Section reinserted--CltFn 16:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Why not quote the documents without these convenient elisions? One says "As used in this First Superseding Indictment, "jihad" is an Arabic word meaning "holy war"."; the other says "As used in this Superseding Indictment, the terms "violent jihad" or "jihad" include. . ." (emphases mine). We already know that one meaning of "jihad" is "holy war", and the U.S. government isn't going to try people for engaging in other types of jihad, so what does this add to the article? Precious little. One could mention, as part of the text addressing the "holy war" meaning, that it is the sense of the word used in two indictments of Islamist militants, but presenting these quotations as the Official US Government Definition is overdoing it. —Charles P. (Mirv) 17:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Page protection redux

Protected this article due to revert war between two anon editors. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 19:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

This was of course intended by user:CltFn. He and others came here and started to make major edits without discussion. Funny enough after CltFn has reverted me 3 times, he starts using an anonymous IP to revert me and another user. Really CltFn, do you think that an anonymous proxy would just come in right after you had 3 reverts and start to revert others calling them a "religiofascist"? [9]

Then is even worse is that he uses another anonymous IP from Ohio Schools to create a revert war to make it seem like I was reverting him! And of course this ends up in page protection while Zeno and others insert their POV into the article. Note CltFn that no one is that interested in this article that they would revert you for the exact same hours that you are online. You have not only been disruptive, but you have violated the 3rr several times. I feel that a solution would be to block him/her from editing until he/she has read policy.--a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to disapoint you but I am not the anonymous IP editor that reverted you. Clearly, you seem awfully keen on jumping to conclusions on insufficient evidence and quick to make wild accusations. I think it might be safe to suspect that you accuse others of what you yourself may be doing.

For your information my original inserts are explained in the section above this one and they are fully sourced. --CltFn 02:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Note to admin -- I realize you are making your best call, but I'm afraid you got buffaloed here. Objective of dueling anonymous edits -- which I suspect were made by same person -- was to get you to freeze in place a version of the article that enshrined the US Dept. of Justice as an authority on Islamic theology. It worked. But could you doublecheck the IP addesses? I think you will find that they link back to no responsible editor of this page. Hats off to the reactionary trolls, points for creativity on this one. BrandonYusufToropov 12:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I am wondering if you did you use your own behavior on wikipedia as the inspiration for this theory?

Perhaps it is high time you come to terms with the fact that wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia and that it is not subject to your Mutaween censorship which you and your group of fellow travellers appear dedicated to . The US govenment definition meet the test for Wikipedia whether you can accept that or not. --CltFn 14:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Paranoid much? Perhaps more people just don't agree with your point of view that you try to force on articles than you would prefer.

Jihad is not "misunderstood", and your attempts to imply Jihad is "nothing to do with war" and "misunderstood" deserve to be reverted - Most people understand it fine, especially those of us in London where religio-fascist Islamic extremists recently murdered than 30 people and injured about 700 others (fact) of all cultures and beliefs, just "obviously" according to Koran/Hadith unbelievers "deserve to be punished" - it's an excuse for violence on "unbelievers".

--Chaosfeary 13:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Did I ever mention my own peculiar genetic weakness? On-line rants from reactionary trolls instantly cause me to fall victim to African sleeping sickness. The condition was first diagnosed in 1997, and since then the doctors have ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz <snore> BrandonYusufToropov 14:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Childish and a poor attempt at trying to be insulting, but we've come to expect that from you... --Chaosfeary 17:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I've unprotected the page. --HappyCamper 13:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)