Talk:Islamic terrorism/Archive 7

Lead sourcing issue

The first sentence of the lead is dubiously sourced. We clearly imply that this phenomena is accurately called "Islamic terrorism" but then source this to a source that argues the exact opposite. If the move happens, as suggested above, this will not be an issue, but if it doesn't a new source is required. I suspect the original source was added at some point when this entry was not named "Islamic terrorism" at all.PelleSmith (talk) 13:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

What does the source argue?Bless sins (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Have changed it to cite us government.93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

"Islamist terrorism"

Some time ago, editors (not including me) agreed that this article was about "Islamic terrorism" not "Islamist terrorism". Hence they changed the name. Currently the lead treats Islamism as a synonym for Islam, something that is wildly inaccurate. Unless there is a source that treats both followers of Islam, and followers of Islamism the same when it comes to terrorism, this shouldn't be there. If there is such a source, please quote it.Bless sins (talk) 01:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of discussion on the title name in 2007, and with the exception of one C. Logan the consensus was for Islamist Terrorism. I'm going to change the name. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Boogaloogie, it seems that the discussion to which you are referring was started on the very day that an admin closed a discussion which led to moving the article to “Islamic terrorism”. Such a contentious change as moving the page to “Islamist terrorism”, without a formal move request and discussion, would be vandalism and reverted. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I won't change the name without discussion on it. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The current title is unacceptable and I put POV tag on it on the basis of former discussions which you can find here, then here and here. Unfortunately there isn't any consensus over the title of the article and I think it's the worst title which could be chosen.--Seyyed(t-c) 03:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this article should be renamed to "Islamist terrorism," as that's what the article is about. Titling the page "Islamic" is inappropriate. --Aude (talk) 06:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This may be a moot argument. Is the correct term not Islamisist? I know Islamist is in popular use but I feel that the former is more correct in English Opiumjones 23 (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

:I propose we re-name it to Jihadist not Islamic. There is no connection between the religion and also there is much confusion over the term. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 14:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I retract it. The name is fine because there is Christian terrorism and Jewish terrorism. You see even some us get confused over the term! Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 14:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

An excellent source for arguing that terroism is mainstream Islamic practice is www.jihadwatch.org. Given that it quotes directly from the Qu'ran and uses Islamic doctrine to support the interpretations that favour terrorism, it seems remiss that it would be neglected on this topic. Starmaster80 (talk) 01:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

My inclination would be to keep it as "Islamic Terrorism". Islamism is specially the belief in an political system government by Islamic rules and values (roughly). One could easily have (and indeed frequently does) a terrorist act that is motivated by an interpretation of Islam, but not directly connected to the establishment of an Islamic political system. JEB90 (talk) 00:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Then let's keep this about Islamic terrorism, and not bring Islamist terrorism. Unless a source says Islamic terrorism = Islamist terrorism, I find it ridiculous that we would equate Islam (the root word of Islamic) with Islamism (the root word for Islamist).Bless sins (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Of course, while Islam and Islamism are not the same thing, Islamic Terrorism is a subset of Islamic Terrorism to the extent that Islamism is informed by an understanding of Islam. So, Islamist Terrorism would be appropriately included here, although it would be incorrect to equate the two things completely. JEB90 (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source that claims that "Islamic [I assume you mean Islamist] Terrorism is a subset of Islamic Terrorism"? I have a source that disavows the term "Islamic terrorism" to describe what it calls "Islamist terrorism".Bless sins (talk) 05:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I did mean "Islamist," sorry. There are any number of sources which deal with the relationship between Islamism and Islam. I don't have quotes and page numbers in front of me at the moment, but every serious scholar of the area from Bernard Lewis to Fazlur Rahman has deal with the relationship between the two (I'd recommend Peter Demant's "Islam vs. Islamism" book for a decent examination, which describes Islamism as "the politicization of religion" but concedes that Islamism is informed by Islam). My point though was largely semantic. I'm claiming that: if, "Islamism" is a politically system informed by an understanding of Islam. And "Islamist Terrorism" is terrorism informed by Islamism. And "Islamic Terrorism" is terrorism informed by an understanding Islam. Then, "Islamist Terrorism" is a form of "Islamic Terrorism." The idea that "terrorism is un-islamic" is an fair theological and political point, but inappropriate to an encyclopedia. If the terrorists say they're informed by Islam, we ought to take that at face value and include them as Islamic Terrorists. The problem here is that people seem to think that by describing Islamism as Islamic, we are equating Islam and Islamism... which would be stupid, but also not what I think it going on here. The key question here, I think, is: Is there any Islamic terrorism that is not Islamist? If no, then we should change the name. If yes, then Islamist terrorism is another subset of Islamic terrorism along with non-Islamist terrorism. JEB90 (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Musten (talk) 07:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC) There are two versions of Islam. One that is being propogated by terrorists and other which is being propogated by moderate/peaceful Muslims. Most non-Muslims hear and amplify and even justify the version propogated by terrorists. Moreover, they question the authenticity of the version propogated by moderate/peaceful muslims, thereby muting moderate voices.

The fact is, both versions are nothing but point of views. It is really upto non-Muslims to choose to believe the version they want to and amplify. If they amplify moderate/peaceful Muslim's version, that will become stronger.

Islam, like any other religion, preaches the same thing. It is no different than any other religion. It is just presented differently. The different presentation may be the effect of learning or the circumstances prevailing in those days when Islam came into existence. History does not always tell the truth. If you are following any religion, believe that Islam preaches the same thing which your religion preaches, just in a different way.

You can choose to amplify this voice and make it stronger or put forth your arguments to justify the version of the terrorists. That will determine how Islam or any other religion is perceived by masses.

I am sure we have all learnt in our childhood about "United we stand, divided we fall". Same thing goes for the problem of terrorism. If we combine all regional terrorism and bind them all with the string of religion, the problem will stand stronger. Once we divide the problem and isolate it, it dies its natural death.

Al-Qaeda has successfully combined regional issues and put a veneer of religion over it to strengther itself.

Within this context, rather than calling it Islamic terrorism, it will be prudent to call it Kashmiri militancy fuelled by Pakistan's separatists views or Palestine militancy or Taliban's militancy.

Kashmiri militants, like erstwhile Khalistanis are confined to India. They just happened to be Muslims. For this example, imagine if the Kashmiris were Christians and wanted Independent Kashmir, will it be prudent to call it Christian Terrorism?

Palestine militancy is confined to Palestine. They don't come and bomb Indian cities. Similarly, Talibans are confined to Afghanistan and Pakistan. They are fighting for their cause and beliefs in the same way as ULFA or LTTE is fighting for their cause and belief.

So, it will help solve problems of terrorism and security if we see them separate rather than combine them as Islamic terrorism.

Its just a matter of changing one's perception to solve problems and establish peace. Musten (talk) 07:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC) Musten (talk) 11:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Further more, I would like to add following as a reason for not terming this as a Islamic Terrorism Islam consists of many denominations. Major two sects are Sunni and Shia. Within these sects there are many more branches. One of the minor branch of Sunni muslims believe that Jihad is the "sixth pillar" of Islam (other five being Shahadah - belief that there is only one god and his messenger is Muhammed, Salah - five time prayers, Zakat - charity, Sawm - fasting during ramazan, Hajj - pilgrimage to Mecca). This Sunni minority sect is referred to as Wahhabi. Osama belongs to this Sunni sect.

Now, only one minority sect of Sunni Muslims believe in Jihad. Thus one can say that it is "Wahhabi Terrorism". This kind of terrorism is not only impacting non-Muslims, it is also impacting other sects of Islam as well. So, for instance, Shia muslims are target of these Wahhabis because they Shias believe in Ali. These Wahhabis want all sects of Islam to follow only their version of Islam.

By calling it Islamic Terrorism, we are implying that all sects of Islam are Wahhabis, which is not true. There are huge differences between each sects and school of thoughts.

By calling it Wahhabi Terrorism, the scope of terrorism is narrowed down to one sect of Islam. This allows us all to focus on containing Wahhabism which is radicalizing Islam and trying to set the current thought process back by 1400 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi

Musten (talk) 11:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect to moderate Muslims, the above is quite confused with respect to Kashmir. They are Islamic terrorists because they propagate Islam. Islamic terrorists -- the Taliban -- in the Swat valley also demand independent Kashmir and hence Government of Pakistan states that they are Kashmiri freedom fighters. But by now you must have heard of the Taliban forcing Sharia and Islam on teh whole of Swat as a condition to cease-fire within Pakistan. Hence they are not fighting for Kashmir, but rather Islam. Please take care when attributing allegiances. Gandhi was a freedom fighter. Taliban and LeT are Islamic terrorists. Mark the difference. Nshuks7 (talk) 09:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Improvements to this article

This article is about a very important contemporary topic and it can be a real encyclopedic source for many people researching the many facets of Islamic terrorism. While the article contains many useful facts, it also violates NPOV, has evolved into an Attack Page, is an example of Fact Picking and full of Original Research. Let's start to clean this up by making it compile with WP policies. I will start it by first fixing Original research and NPOV section and will keep each change small and document it. I will also save it before going on to another change. This will allow anyone who disagrees to check my work, edit, or undo each change. But, please don't make blanket reversions without discussing first.

My attempt is to improve this article for the benefit of WP and hopefully we can come to a consensus where we can remove the "POV" and "cleanup" tags.1detour (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Recent

1. I restored a revert/edit by Jimmy. Though according to Jim "no other wording was honest," Jim's wording itself was not English.
2. I restored a paragraph that Jimmy removed, that deals with the reference to God as the justification for violence. Sources and more description here are forthcoming.
3. The language "ideology of violence" is an accurate and concise definition of terrorism, that deals with its two main aspects in plain and neutral language: "terror" is largely superlative for "violence," and the affix "-ism" indicates an ideology. Even though certain incarnations of 'violence ideology' fit within larger political or religious ideologies, "terror" itself, aside from being the emotional reaction to such violence, is simply as the definition states. "the Russian counterterrorism law defines terrorism as "the ideology of violence and practice of exerting pressure on decision making by state bodies" (Terrorism in asymmetrical conflict: ideological and structural aspects, By Ekaterina Stepanova, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Oxford University Press US, 2008 ISBN 0199533555, 9780199533558 186 pages). -Stevertigo 14:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Original Research is not welcome. This refers both to the meaningless text you've posted here and the edits made in the article it's self. making up the meaning of the term terrorism is unhelpful and against guidelines, please refrain from making unproductive edits and read up on rules before trying to argue a point you are already informed is incorrect. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 15:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Your arguments are so strong. How will I answer? Just taking the first example, you reject language directly quoted from a book on terrorism, itself quoting Russian counter-terrorism law, and call it "original research." No, actually you didn't —you just state "original research is not welcome," and make no actual substantive argument as to why cited terms and concepts constitute "original research." Strong as your arguments are, however, you do go on to call what "what [I've] posted here, and the edits made in the article it's self " ([sic]- the word, in the English language, is "itself," not "it's self"), and state in an obtuse way (via a klunky reference to policy) that I'm just "making up the meaning of the term terrorism." All very strong points indeed. I could go on..

..And I will ! You also strongly ask that I "please refrain from making unproductive edits and read up on rules." For starters, I've been here seven years now, and I've help write some of those "rules" you so strongly and yet uselessly reference. Second, while I appreciate the improbable possiblity that your writing and even editing might be far superiour to mine, or anyone else's for that matter, your now twice-mentioned (and there's more..) lack of English language skills presents a barrier to our consideration of your writing, or rather, reverting (cf. WP:NINJA). Strong as it is. "..before trying to argue a point you are already informed is incorrect" is just another example (of both not-so-good English and your now familiar 'strong arguments') and I'm sure you will offer us more in the very near future. Sincerest regards, -Stevertigo 17:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor i feel a need to comment on this revision, which seems to be a form of pov pushing. The inserted line "with the active support and participation of nearly all other world states" seems to indicate no one agrees with the combatant on the left side(The terrorists), and all flock to the combatant on the right side (the US). The statement itself even seems to be incorrect. The War on Terrorism article lists a total of 39 combatants (including the US) on one side of the war; Yet with a good 209 states that have sovereignity on this world this can not be called "Nearly all world states". At the same time an attack on "World Citizens"? That would indicate that anyone on this world is a target. At least create a better context that only refers to the correct group such as "Their perceived enemies" or something alike. Simply saying world citizens would mean that by now they would have exterminated themselves, as they also fall into that category :) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your insights. Keep in mind that no state has open stated their support for Al-Qaeda, while even the most hardline fundamentalist states like Iran and Saudi Arabia have expressed their sympathies, if not the support of troops, to the U.S. Likewise, the international dimensions need to be considered. Even in ancient Greece, battles between city-states had international dimensions such as in allegiances and foreign troop support. How is the "global" war on terrorism any more localized to just the United States and a few particular countries than even ancient Sparta? The WOT article figure does not deal with "international support," rather it deal with just troop support. Which might be an important distinction, if you consider various other aspects of the campaign — no-safe-harbor policies, counter-finance support such as freezing or confiscating bank accounts, and simple provision of intelligence support.

The term "world citizens" should be fairly obvious, and in fact is impervious to the kind of paradox you suggest, if it is understood. The word "citizen" means something —its a concept of being in a society with the full acceptance and privileges of that society. Citizenship is not irrevocable, and people who do evil things and sometimes just locally improper things can lose their local citizenship. The world is a society. Likewise an accepted and privileged person in the world is a world citizen. There are no taxes involved, and certain crimes may be treated differently in different places, but world citizenship has a serious meaning which you don't quite yet give enough credit to.

I'd appreciate any suggestion of alternative text. Any source you have for your idea that terrorist or anti-terrorist concepts of "enemy" are only "perceptual" and not actually real? --Stevertigo 19:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

British Attitude to Terrorism and Interpretation of Qur'an

I am deleting this section as it does not mention anything about the British attitude to terrorism. Instead it just talks about Brian Cloughley's view on terrorism. He does not represent the British people and I don't even know who is.Wikinpg (talk) 14:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Also removed some bias in the wording of interpretation of Qur'an, and added an example of an Islamic terrorist interpreting the Qur'an to justify their actions.Wikinpg (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

To the editors

I feel that the first paragraph of the lead is very fairly written. I believe that it accurately captures the situation without bias or slant towards either the Western or non-Western facets, in a topic open to such problems. Well done. SGGH ^ping! 22:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The first paragraph is not representative of the article, especially the different viewpoints about the motivation of terrorism as well as the examples of attacks listed at the bottom of the article; some of the attacks are clearly nationalistics (Palestanians and Israelis) as well as those where Christian Palestanians have been involved.1detour (talk) 03:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Removal of revision 292798362 by 1detour

Do the editors agree with this removal. 1detour says:

"POV. Not encyclopedic. Not-referenced. Theorizing that capital punishment and suicidal terrorism is the same is not worthy of WP."

How come it's okay to have the views of the clerics who claim beheadings are unislamic. But we don't get to hear the views of those who argues that beheadings are Islamic. I have referenced everything, except the beheadings at the battle of trench. If you want a reference: "Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, p. 461-464."

The entry is not saying capital punishment and suicidal terrorism are the same. Critics are pointing out that it's false for the clerics to say beheadings are unislamic. When beheading do occur as part of sharia law, were ordered by prophet muhammad and have been performed by those who have tried to enforce sharia law. There are also quotes in the Qur'an, which I have listed, which appear to support beheadings. Muslims follow the actions of the prophet, so if the prophet ordered beheading of his enemies. Doesn't that mean muslims are allowed to do the same to enemies of Islam? This is a perfectly legitimate point and I have referenced everything. Removing this entry is making this article very one side and I haven't added anything factually incorrect. I also haven't made any opinions/statements, just presented the evidence for the other side of the argument. Wikinpg (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks you don't understand Wikipedia:Original research. If a state carries out capital punishment, it is not a case of state terrorism unless reliable sources intrepret it that way. This is the case with the Holocaust or the Trench Battle: if you have sources treating it as Islamic terrorism you can include it. If not don't waste people's time. --Wadq (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikingp, I believe you have good intentions. But, for material to be publishable on WP, there are several policies and guideleines that need to be met, including avoiding WP:OR. In this case, it means not duplicating theories by un-reliable source, such as faithfreedom (ff). ff is not a reliable source for several reasons. The fact that their sole claim to fame is being ex-Muslims does not equate to being scholar on this topic; they don't even reveal their true identities let alone their credentials. (Also, just because they have created a website does not make their opinion any more reliable than yours or mine). Therefore not worthy of WP. Contrast this with the people who say that beheadings of innocent is Un-Islamic and who say that vigilantism is Un-Islamic; included on this side are people such as Bernard Lewis (PhD, professor at Princeton University and teaching & studying this subject for 60 years) and the biggest group of Muslim clerics from Pakistan, a very influential group in a country of 170 million Muslims and whose business it is to follow God's commandments without being politically correct or incorrect.

Most important test: We need to keep a typical WP user in mind. A typical user comes to WP to get good and reliable info. If ff's and perhaps you feel differently than those reliable sourcers presented here, that's OK with me.

Your point about quoting verse from the Quran is also more of your personal opinion and more O.R. because you are interpreting something. The fact that you as a novice take a verse, you are avoidng the passage of 5-7 verses and therefore its context. If a physics student were to only study one line on page 5, another on page 50, and yet another on page 75, of his or her physics book, you will agree that this student is not going to get an "A" on the test. Do you think that when someone who has no good intentions about Islam cherry-pick a verse truly wants to understand the truth? Or, would someone who has taken the time to read the entire passage and reads volumes of Muslim Jurispudence & interpretation is likely to be more sincere? Even when these people are not Muslims? These are the characteristics of a scholar. 1detour (talk) 04:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Sikh Terrorism

Anyone wishing to take part in contributing to Sikh Terrorism please feel free Morbid Fairy (talk) 21:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Munich

4 September 1972 - Munich Olympic Massacre. is not an religiously motivated and hence it's out of scope--Michael1408 00:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael1408 (talk • contribs)

agree Dr B2 (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment

This article remains filled with errors and has become a coatrack by editors trying their best to portray Islam only in a negative light. For example, this article contains motivations attributed to Islam which are very questionable as well as the list of terrorist attacks which are clearly due to nationalism as well as others done by Palestanian Christians. This vandalism by the Islamophobe editors means that anyone wanting to know the truth should verify the source and verify the references themselves for reliability.1detour (talk) 05:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

There has recently been a great deal of vandalism by Muslim contributors, but I urge them to understand that this is generally a balanced entry and they should contribute only constructively in an effort to better understand Islamic terrorism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.200.143 (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a fairly objective and informative article. It is an important article, but should be reviewed by experts on terrorism. Islamic terrorism, like other forms of extremism, does not exist in a vacuum. This article could, if adequately contributed to, provide an understanding of why Islamic extremism exists, and it thus could provide a valuable resource for those interested in pursuing it further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David matthews (talk • contribs) 23:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the article is objective and fair. The article is far from complete, however. For example the list of Islamic terrorist acts does not mention many acts of terrorism. I think that is because this is a fairly new article. Hopefully, the gaps will be filled in time. It is a useful and important article and should be kept. There should be companion articles also (e.g. Sikh terrorism) so that it does not appear unfair to Muslims. However, Muslims must understand that this is an article meant to provide information on Islamic terrorism and not to demean them in any way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.153.8 (talk) 22:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)