Talk:Jihad
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Talk:Jihad".

content
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓
This is not a forum for general discussion of Jihad.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jihad article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute.
Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
To-do list for Jihad:  · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
    This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain.
     
    This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
    Peer review Jihad received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
    Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Jihad as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Japanese language Wikipedia.
    Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~), and read this. As a courtesy to other users, editors may use {{unsigned}} to help mark any unsigned comments. See Pending Tasks here.

    Contents
    Archive
    Archives
    Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3
    Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6
    Archive 7 Archive 8

    Protected?

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

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

    Moving forward

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

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

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

    The contributors to this article are all in a classroom. They signed up for a certain project called Wikipedia. There is an calm murmur in the room - the sunlight filters in perfectly from the side windows. Looking to the left, you smell the spring flowers. Everyone is wondering what the overhead projector at the front of the class is for...
    Suddenly, a voice from a speaker announces that within 24 hours time, a certain article will be posted for editing. You are told that it needs to be improved to be best of your abilities, and collaboratively with everyone else in the classroom so that all the ideas expressed are NPOV.
    And you think: "I know a thing or two about this topic. I think I can do that, and I think it would be enjoyable!"
    One of them happened to preemptively obtain a copy of this article, and apparently, it was posted somewhere on the internet...you all go to this site, take a look, and think: Hmm...this is missing X, Y, Z. It needs to mention A, B, C. I think D, E, F should be rephrased as ...
    In that moment, everything in the past was forgotten and forgiven.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    A green field with exciting possibilities just beyond its horizons...
    A green field with exciting possibilities just beyond its horizons...

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

    Reinstating discussions

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

    Jihad as holy war

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

    Wrong. A tomato is both a fruit and a vegetable. Check your facts before you preach. Owen× ☎ 02:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


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

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

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

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



    "Jihad as warfare

    The United States Department of Justice defines Jihad as follows:

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

    Dishonesty and revert warring

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

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


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

    Exactly the same is true of Jewish and Christian interests on Wikipedia. Certain articles are watched like hawks by those with a interest in enforcing a particular viewpoint. Any dissent is deemed 'trolling' so specific editors can claim their point of view stands and 3reverts doesnt apply. Wikipedia is generally a good source of information but is to some degree tainted by those that want to enforce a particular point of view when it comes to relgion, politics etc.

    I agree completely. Having an interest in Jewish History in many periods, I have come across the Jewish WikiPolice frequently. Some articles are basically owned by certain individuals, and you cannot even hope to make changes even in tone, let alone in content, regardless of your expertise. In general I disagree with you when you say that WP is a good source of information; most articles are filled with inaccuracies, because contributors in general are not experts, but merely knowledgable amateurs at best. 66.108.105.21 19:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

    Typo

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

    In the second paragraph is this clause:

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

    It should be

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

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

    It's been corrected now - see [1]. --HC 06:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

    Just a bit longer...

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

    I don't see a point for unprotection yet. You have seen the type of arguments made by the people who want to insert the controversial POV material. There would have been no revert war if the major edits were discussed before by these users, namely user:Zeno of Elea. I think that the article should be protected longer until these additions have been sorted out. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 14:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
    I agree. I want to say too, though, that it's bizarre that this article so frequently gets frozen in place in a version that includes the absurd passages relating to the US Department of Justice's insights on Islamic theology.
    That having been said, I think we should all be able to discuss what the consensus is for major edits to a page of this visibility, and keeping the article protected seems the best way to do that. BrandonYusufToropov 21:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
    BrandonYusufToropov, you are involved in deleting information, specifically the DOJ defintion, through this revert war. You are asking that the page be protected for a longer time so that we can discuss the content dispute, but you clearly refuse to discuss the content itself. All you have done so far is whined about the "wrong version" being protected in the past, and you have baselessly asserted that the mention of the US DOJ's description of Jihad is "absurd." Why is it absurd? Why are you deleting it? Do you have anything to say for yourself in the interest of intellectual honesty? -- Zeno of Elea 01:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    Anonymous editor and BrandonYusufToropov have already been given a suffucient amount of time to try to justify their revert warring and respond to the criticisms of their reverts that have been made. -- Zeno of Elea 17:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
    And Zeno has been given enough time to discuss why she would make such large amounts of POV edits without a word of discussion when she knew the edits would be controversial. Also she has had enough time to realize that her major POV edits and the reverts to her edits are the ones in question. But remembering Zeno, she hasn't learned the meaning of discussion and would support any revert war as long as anti-Islamic material was presented. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 18:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
    Anonymous editor, first of all you are well aware that I am a "he" not a "she" (as I have told you in the past); you may want to see the article Zeno of Elea as this the name of a famous peson who was a "he" and who any educated person ought to have read about through study of "Zeno's paradoxes." Furthermore, all you have provided here are personal attacks and baseless assertions that my edits are "POV" (without any explanation of why), and now you expect your censorship practices to be accepted without question. I would recommend that you worry less about making personal attacks against me and worry more about addressing the points I have made above regarding the current content dispute (which you are a part of through your revert warring). Furthermore, you keep asserting that I have made "major edits" to the article, but this clearly not true. In fact, YOU are the one who is making major edits by deleting a good 30% of the article without any intellectually respectable explanation. -- Zeno of Elea 01:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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

    I think that the prime instigator of the revert war would be the one who came along and started making unexplained, POV edits. No one has made personal attacks against you and nothing as direct, but it's common to hear your allegations and useless rants rather than any productive discussion. Btw, this is not my preferred version, a lot of what has been added in this version is the way you want it, not me. For my edits, can you please tell me where I deleted 30% of the article? I only reverted unexplained edits by you and haven't added/removed anything to the article that is different from its version previous to when you and your friends started this revert war. And as for your edits, I think some edits speak for themselves [2]. Also the DOJ definition discussion is already discussed - see archived discussion. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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

    Links

    Let's start from the bottom of the article, and focus on one thing only: the external links and references. Take a look at this edit: [3]. What is the dispute surrounding these links? It seems that the only difference is whether they should be characterized as "Sites critical of Jihad", or whether they are "Secular sites discussing Jihad", and whether they should be placed closer to the top or bottom. Is this correct? Does this mean that all the editors agree that they are worthy for inclusion on this page? HC 02:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

    The thing is, not all non-Muslim sites about Jihad are "critical" of it, and it's POV to imply this, a siege mentality really.. - It's like if the Encylopedia bit said "Encylopedias critical of Jihad". --Chaosfeary 11:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    Jihad's use as a propaganda term by reputable mainstream commentators is probably an important dimension of its meaning, and an underdiscussed one in this article. Sites from such commentators -- as opposed to hate-speech free-for-alls like faithfreedom.org -- should probably appear. As far as I can tell, everything on this links list should be in, though I think the title of that section still needs work. BrandonYusufToropov 11:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    What this particular section is called and where it is placed is a minor issue. The question of where it is placed is easily solved by adopting an alphabetical listing policy. I would say that "Criticism of Jihad" under "External Links" is more appropriate, and a link to Criticism of Islam would be relevant. The links section is really not the issue here and it has nothing to do with the revert war that led you to protect the page, as the diff you provide indicates. -- Zeno of Elea
    Really? I must have misunderstood them then. In some reversions, the location and the title of the links seems to change along with a specific paragraph of text. I must ask, does "DOJ" mean "US Department of Justice" on this page? Also, is there a reason why other national/international operating definitions of jihad are not mentioned in the article, in additional to the DOJ one? --HC 05:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    Yes DOJ means US Department of Justice. The probable reason for why other national/international operating definitions of jihad are not mentioned in the article is because no editor has ever heard of such a thing. At any rate, no one has stopped anyone from adding national/international operating definitions of jihad besides the DOJ since no one has proposed anything of the sort. This does not justify deleting the information about the DOJ operating definition. -- Zeno of Elea 06:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    I'm sorry. You're saying that no editor has ever heard of any other government body referring to "jihad" or defining it? BrandonYusufToropov 11:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    There is also archived discussion on this HC. [4]. As I mentioned before, I really see no reason why one country should have any authority in defining part of a religion. Would you hear the US "DOJ" define christian terms like trinity? No you wouldn't. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    Or, perhaps more to the point, the opinions of Saudi Arabia's royal family on the topic of the Trinity. Perhaps someone who's heavily invested in this particular content could do some of the necessary research and then try to insert that Saudi material in Trinity so we can all see exactly what happens. Based on those results, we can discuss what should happen here. BrandonYusufToropov 22:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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


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

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

    Make a to-do list?

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

    Heartily agree. A lack of consensus about what, precisely needs to get worked on next is a big part of the problem here. BrandonYusufToropov 14:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    This has nothing to do with the page protection that you have enforced and which has been in place for quite a while now. You didn't protect the page so that we can make a to-do list in order improve the article. The page was protected because of a revert war, and the main point of contention is the DOJ legal definition of Jihad. -- Zeno of Elea 06:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    And your major edits too which were undiscussed. If the DOJ is the one dispute then we can add to that discussion which has been archived. I don't think that if the page was unprotected that much would change and the same conflict will continue. A to do list is a good way to resolve disputes. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

    Compromise and asymototic NPOV

    Also, regarding the reversions related to the DOJ definition...How about this compromise? We insert the both the DOJ text, and the other text into two separate sections and place section NPOV tags on them? In this way, at least both sources of ideas will be present on the same page - it will make it easier to determine how to best merge the content together I think, if everything is on one page instead of two. How do all of you feel about this? If the presence or absence of a certain section of text is important enough to cause a sustained edit war, it seems reasonable to conclude that both sets of ideas deserve to be expressed in some form. Of course, the resulting text may not be immediately NPOV - but in this case, I think we can at least aim for what I call asymtotic NPOV - at least have all the ideas on one page, so that a variety of editors can come by and help rewrite the ideas into a totally NPOV form - giving the Wiki some time and patience to achive this. By reverting to different texts, the ideas are simply lost, and nothing can be built upon them. For this reason, I think the article has not progressed significantly for the past few weeks. Can we agree to adapt this approach for the next little while, or at least agree to try it out? Keep all the ideas, and instead of removing them, and strive to reword it so that it is palatable to everyone. HC 02:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

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

    Word etymology

    Also, I found this site here from Canada [5]. The summary at minimum suggests that the meaning of the word "jihad" is contextual. It may be worthwhile to introduce explicitly a "word etymology" section into the top of the article so that the history of its usage, and its application is clearly outlined for the rest of the article. We can make it a goal of the article to convey to the reader that the concepts associated with "jihad" have carried different meanings under various contexts for different people over time. Once we have established that the purpose of the article is to convey these different perspectives, it should not be so difficult to present the reverted versions of the page in a manner which complements each other. How does this approach sound to everyone? HC 02:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

    "Also, I found this site here from Canada [6]" First of all, NC, this is the website of the Canadian Islamic Congress, which is not a reliable source. Secondly, the article goes into great depth about the different contextual uses of the word "Jihad." Please see the article content on the different kinds of Jihad, eg. Jihad by the hand, Jihad by the pen, Jihad of the heart, etc, etc. - this covers all of the issues raised by the link that you have provided.
    "It may be worthwhile to introduce explicitly a "word etymology" section into the top of the article so that the history of its usage, and its application is clearly outlined for the rest of the article." Etymology is the study of the origin and history of words. Etymology is NOT the study of the present usage and "application" of words. The link that you gave does not say anything about the etymology of the word. If you have information on the Arabic etymology of the word "Jihad" then you are of course welcome to add it, but please realize that a word's defintion is not the same as its etymology. I would imagine that the Arabic word "jihad" has its origins in Aramaic or Hebrew or Proto-Semitic.
    "Once we have established that the purpose of the article is to convey these different perspectives, it should not be so difficult to present the reverted versions of the page in a manner which complements each other." NC, which different perspectives are you talking about? You went from talking about context to talking about etymology and then you went to talking about "different perspectives" - these are three completely different issues. I realize that you are only trying to help and do so in an even handed way, but suggesting that we resolve this revert war but carrying out an unrelated etymological study is not appropriate. As for the different usages of the word Jihad, this is already covered by the article. I do not know which "different perspectives" you are talking about, nor do I know what you mean by "conveying" these "different perspectives." You are speaking in very general terms and you seem to lack famaliarity with the subject matter. I do not see how your flurry of ideas on how to expand the article is going to help us resolve the issue of whether or not the DOJ legal definition should be included in the article (which is the cause of this revert war). -- Zeno of Elea 07:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

    I like day dong.

    Mainstream Muslims consider jihad to be misunderstood by non-Muslims

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

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

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

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

    Clarification

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The "two pages" I was referring to was this [7] version here. The content on the yellow and green side seemed to be completely different, and I did not notice until now that it is looks like a reshuffing of content.The yellow side seems to have the extra paragraph: The United States Department of Justice defines...<ending with a book source by Maxime Rodinson>. Is that section the only source of dispute on the article right now?

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

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

    What next?

    I'm going to unprotect the page and see what happens. There's at least some willingness to make a "to-do" list, which means there is a willingness for some discussion. If changes are made to the article, please keep them incremental. --HC 01:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

    "If changes are made to the article, please keep them incremental." By saying this, you are in effect endorsing the version of the article that you protected. -- Zeno of Elea 04:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    This is exactly what I would say had the other version been protected. I'm not endorsing anything, and I don't like the insinuation that I am. I don't think I can do anything else beyond what is already done, with the exception of filing a peer review. So after that, I think I'm moving on to some other project on Wikipedia. There were no more 3RR edits after the page was unprotected, so as far as I am concerned, the edit war is over. --HC 04:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    "This is exactly what I would say had the other version been protected. I'm not endorsing anything, and I don't like the insinuation that I am." A version of the article was protected and I'm not insinuating anything, I'm describing to you upfront what the consequences of your actions are. Just as in any edit war, there are two versions of the article - let's call them version A and version B and say that A is the version of the article which includes the DOJ definition and my reoriganization of the article into two sections (discussed above), and B is the version of the article which deletes the DOJ definition and reverts my reorganization. You protected version B of the article (this is not to say that you endorsed version B by protecting it). Then after a while you unprotected version B article, and simultaniously wrote here that changes to the current article (version B) be kept incremental. Why must the change from B to A be incremental, and not the change from A to B? Just because you happened to protected and unprotect version B of the article as opposed to version A? After you unprotected version B and made these declerations, the article was reverted to version A (meaning that the DOJ definition and the reorganization (both of which were discussed above, without response from the opposing side) were restored. Shortly thereafter, User:Yuber reverted back to version B and wrote in his edit summary, "RV non-incremental edit" and now he is spear-leading this revert war supposedly in the name of "incrementalism." Where did he get this idea that any changes of the article from version B be kept incremental, but that changes from version A of the article not be kept incremental? Your suggestion that changes to version B be kept incremental is now the latest justification for deleting the DOJ definition of Jihad without any discussion or justification by users who are known POV warriors on year-long probabations. The emperical evidence is that your latest comments / actions have resulted in official endorsement of content. -- Zeno of Elea 10:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

    Some Reader Comments

    I apologize if I'm not doing the peer review right. As a reader without any special expertise in these thoughts, it seems to me that this article suffers from a frequent Wikipedia problem - a casual reader can see that there is some kind of debate under the surface of the article, but the article is arranged in such a way as to make it hard to understand the arguments of each side or their evidence. As an example of this, it takes three or four readings of the "Greater or Lesser Jihad" section for a new reader to figure out what the disagreement is and what statements are meant to support one side or the other.

    1. As far as I can tell from the article, everyone agrees that, today, some people use "jihad" to mean primarily or even exclusively war against the unbelievers (which may then be divided into defensive war and offensive war), and some people use jihad to include non-violent struggles. In this sense, jihad is similar to the Western use of "crusade," although its origin may be different.

    2. One side to the debate seems to argue that, more or less: (i) jihad meant both violent and non-violent efforts as early as the birth of Islam, (ii) personal non-violent jihad should be understood by true muslims as being superior to holy war, (iii) jihad should not be understood to mean primarily holy war today, and (iv) moreover, in many cases where jihad does mean holy war, it really means a defensive holy war.

    3. The other side seems to argue, more or less: (i) the primary understanding of the meaning of jihad, both today and historically, is holy war; (ii) the use of jihad to mean personal struggle is primarily a sufi tradition that has been seized upon by jihad apologists, but does not have a historical basis outside the sufi tradition.

    If I understand the debate correctly, as a reader, I would prefer to have the debate spelled out (presumably in its own section), and then have the evidence pro and con each side arranged in a clear way, with citations to support. OHOH, if I misunderstand the debate, then I'm not sure why there's so much struggle on both sides.

    A separate page of "historical uses of the word 'jihad' in literature" might be helpful to address some of these issues as well.

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

    This is, I think, an excellent analysis, and it remains only to be seen whether people are willing to discuss it and implement it. BrandonYusufToropov 19:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    "This is, I think, an excellent analysis, and it remains only to be seen whether people are willing to discuss it..." And you are not discussing it because ... ? -- Zeno of Elea 08:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    Zeno, I endorse its contents in full and commit to implementing it. Will you join me in doing that? BrandonYusufToropov 11:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    "This is, I think, an excellent analysis, and it remains only to be seen whether people are willing to discuss it...I endorse its contents in full and commit to implementing it. Will you join me...?" Why arent you discussing it, Yusuf? Why should I join you in some quest that you havent discussed? Your statements are completely void of substance. By saying "it remains only to be seen whether people are willing to discuss it" you are insinuiating that it is up to other editors to discuss while you can sit back and demand that others discuss it and "commit (submit?)" to it. I am not convinced User:TheronJ's arguments and I feel that he has misunderstood the subject matter. It is as much up to you to discuss your view as it is up to me to discuss mine. Yet you do not say anything of substance, other than discussing that "it remains to be seen whether anyone discusses." This is a problem with your editing style that has to be addressed in order for these revert wars to end. Why don't you elaborate on User:TheronJ's arguments, and discuss their merits how they pertain to the actual text and organization of the artice, if you are so commited to implementing them? What exactly is it that you want? -- Zeno of Elea 14:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
    "I am not convinced User:TheronJ's arguments and I feel that he has misunderstood the subject matter." That seems likely - I'm only giving you