":Just because B and 8 are similar does not mean that they are same. Similarly, ""Love Jihad"" and ""Forced conversion"" may look similar to some, but they are not same. In ""love jihad"", one has a jihadist impulse, which is far more fanatical and unscrupulous than the normal Islamist impulse to convert (resulting in ""Forced conversion""). So they are at a totally different level and are distinct concepts. There may be other differences too. I myself am doing OR here, but my OR gets no place in the article. This source is being used on the strength of the OR that ""Love Jihad"" is same/similar to ""Forced conversion"" and this is how it becomes a violation of WP:OR policy, and that is why it should have no place in the article.
I am afraid using this source does involve synthesis. Here's how. The source is being used to convey the sense that ""Love Jihad"" is an imaginary, baseless concept. This is being done on the strength of the OR that ""Love Jihad"" and ""Forced conversion"" are same/ similar & combining it with the source, is being used to convey that the source is saying that ""Love jihad"" is a baseless concept. This is how it is synthesis. Actually, we have no source (except the opinion of WP eds, which are inadmissible in article space) that the two concepts are same/ similar + this source does not say that the issue of ""Love jihad"" is baseless. It is only saying things about ""Forced conversion"" etc. So, you see the synthesis part now. The source is being made to say things it does NOT say. I hope I have been able to convey myself clearly. Thanks.  

Arbitrary break

"