Talk:Jihad/Archive 4

message: ... that reinserted, for instance, the myth that the Qur'an promises 72 virgins, and deleted, for instance, the Qur'an's actual teachings on matters of warfare ... much of this has been debated at length. See the archives. Instead of hijacking the article anonymously, please see talk page or discuss specific edits to specific sections here. BrandonYusufToropov 17:52, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted vast landscapes of anonymous POV edits 

message: Most of these edits seem excessively POV and should be reverted.  But some of them do add new information.  I was going to just mass revert his changes but I have not been working on this article at all so I thought it would be better to point it out and let others debate what to change back.  The anonymous author seems to be of the opinion that suicide bombing and terrorism against civilians is much more popular among Muslims than it really is, and even makes the claim that there are no "liberal" Muslims anywhere.  I think a lot of it should be reverted.  Also the poll he points to should be clarified -- these are Muslim Palestinians on the West Bank being interviewed, not Muslims around the world.  I think the article had a lot of POV problems before, but these edits make it a lot worse. --csloat 18:59, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by 165.247.42.41 

message: Hi there 80.58.4.42 -- consider this relevant quote, which struck me as appropriate and not, perhaps taken into account in your undiscussed anonymous edit:
Jihad, therefore, does not mean every single battle fought by any Middle-Eastern soldier, who may be anything from a Marxist to a member of a private bodyguard, and not a martyr for God. Many battles have nothing whatsoever to do with Islam. The Qur'an is quite clear on the limits that define jihad .... Women children, and the old and the sick are not to be harmed ...
There are a lot of interesting names for the phenomenon you're writing about, but Jihad is not one of them, regardless of what Western media sources may have to say about it.
Thanks again for stopping in 80.58.4.42, I hope to hear more from you here on the talk page BrandonYusufToropov 18:18, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still more undiscussed anonymous edits 

message: It would be funny if it wasn't sad to read the apologetic twistings by Torporov, some self-proclaimed Russian Jew who converted to Catholicism and then Islam.  As with most late in life converts to any religion, he sees his newfound religion as perfect, and he refuses to acknowledge the ugliness in any of its religious practice, instead falling back repeatedly on the argument that in effect is "No, even though Al Qaeda refers to its Jihad against 'Crusaders and Jews', even though Egyptian Islamic Jihad refers over and over again to Jihad in its murderous attacks against innocent people, and even though Al Qaeda sympathizers repeatedly invoke Jihad when murdering innocent people, Jihad is really only what I Mr. Torporov say it is".  That reminds me of Communists who used to say "The Soviet Union was not Communist!  Mao's China was not Communist!  There is no need to discuss the Soviet Union and Mao's China when talking about Communism!"
There are many great aspects to Islam, as with most any religion that can survive for hundreds of years.  But, it does no good to pretend there are not problems.  Just like it is foolish and dangerous for the Catholic Church to deny that there are more than a few priests throughout the world (not just in the USA, but across Europe, Latin America, Africa, and Asia too) who violate their priestly vows by engaging in sexual abuse of children, so too is it foolish and dangerous to deny that Jihad is invoked by more than a few Muslims today to justify the murder of innocent civilians.  No one has argued that most Catholics or most Catholic priests abuse children or condone child abuse.  No one has argued that most Muslims condone the murderous self-proclaimed Jihad of Al Qaeda, the many different terror groups that call themselves Islamic Jihad, and similar Islamist terror groups that murder innocent civilians.  However, Torporov either wants to pretend these groups and their wide bases of support do not exist (and they are certainly very relevant in any discussion of "Jihad"), or he wants to pretend that since he feels that Islam cannot justify murder that these groups are actually engaging in justifiable defensive moves and not murder, or he wants to pretend that these groups exist but they have not committed any violent acts at all.
No one edited out the detailed description of the history of Jihad.  That was left in clear format for all to see.  My opinion (which is not directly relevant to this discussion) is that Islam can and will continue to grow and improve in its commonly practiced forms, just as all religions that survive do.  The Catholic Church has many ugly episodes in its past, yet in the past century has begun to make apologetic overtures towards many of the people that it wronged in the past, i.e., Orthodox Christians, Jews, and Muslims.  I believe that in the decades to come, there will be courageous Muslim leaders with truly mass followings (not state-appointed leaders who the masses ignore or don't take seriously) who express clear condemnation and apologies for the wrong done by too many terror groups in the name of Islam and Jihad.  Note that such courageous Muslim leaders would not be under any obligation to issue such apoligies -- only the terrorists and their supporters can be held accountable.  But just like there are no Catholics alive who were involved in the brutality of the Crusades, yet the Catholic Church today expresses apologies and regrets of the evil actions of those who acted in its name, I believe courageous Muslim leaders with true mass followings will behave similarly in great gestures of peace, reconciliation, and apology.
:The above unsigned garbage was written by "Peter chehabi" who I think is the same user as Enviroknot, who I think is also the jerk who was making these changes anonymously.  User account "Peter chehabi appears to have been created exclusively to continue vandalizing this page. 
:And, just for the record, many Muslim organizations condemn terrorism.--csloat 22:46, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jihad today includes murder of innocent civilians 

message: I don't give a fig who Envirowhatever is.
Ya'ani, ana lubnani.  That good enough for you?  I think that whoever is making those accusations is the spammer or vandal, since instead of responding on the issue of Jihad and terror in the modern world, the person(s) sidesteps the issue.
:Well, if you're not Envirowhatever, it's awful curious that you created your user ID just today, specifically to edit this article, and you jump right into an edit war head first and talk smack on a discussion page without signing your posts.  You're pretty bold, for your first day on Wikipedia.  --csloat 02:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt this guy is Enviroknot.Yuber(talk) 22:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop being paranoid, PeterChehabi is not Environot 

message: "In the Western media and among Islamic fundamentalist movements, the word jihad has gained connotations and meanings that in some cases are narrower and and in some cases different from its original meaning."
That is a pretty fair and balanced sentence.  It specifically says that Western media and Islamic fundamentalist movemements have given "connotations and meanings" to Jihad that are narrower or different from its original meaning.  It does not say that mainstream Muslims accept these meanings, and in fact the rest of the article still gives a very clear history and discussion of Jihad.
:I'm willing to stop mass reverting this article and deal with specific edits -- I don't disagree with this particular sentence at all, but many of the edits seem to make exactly the point that you claim is not being said here.--csloat 02:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Read the opening sentence: 

message: Some of the edits are rather troubling.  For instance "Even if the death of a martyr in a military operation is certain, many Muslims consider the act martyrdom rather than suicide." changing "Islamic militants" to "many Muslims" is a problem... in fact, neither are good ways... it's true that more than Islamic militants do support such missions but "many Muslims"? Many is an incredibly subjective word.  In a class of 26, 15 students is many students... but in the population of about a billion Muslims what is many?  Is 2,000,000 or are you trying to imply that maybe 100,000,000 support it?  The truth is, we don't know how many support it.  It's just conjecture.  How about something like "an unknown number of Muslims are supportive"... why? because that's true and isn't misleading.  That's just the first problem I have with this article... trying to change size descriptors to suit one's POV is not good. gren 04:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag