Talk:Islamic terrorism/Archive 1

message: I have tried to bring Islamic terrorism and militant Islam into some sort of neutral, coherent state. These two terms are closely related in usage and problems, so please read both before making changes. --Zeeshanhasan 18:16, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Npov

message: This article suffers badly from it's American POV.  It really needs a re-write --195.7.55.146 17:57, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: *An Islamic ideal of non-violence by  Zeeshan Hasan from LiberalIslam.net
I dont question the content of this person's writings but rather the extent of his influence upon the more than one billion Muslims in the world.  Can anyone indicate the extent of his influence.  On this own web site, he says that he can not find a publisher for this ideas.  Lance6Wins 02:18, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  An authority 

message: As per the suggestion of Ancheta Wis, I changed the name of this article form Islamic to Islamist. He suggests it is a more precise and respectful label, and I agree. Kingturtle 19:57, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  rename.... 

message: I agree Islamist terrorism is a much better phrase than Islamic Terrorism although I think it is still not accurate and assumes that Islam and terrorism are not incompatible. 'Islam' means submission to God and also has a close relationship to the arabic word for peace. Therefore saying 'Islamist terrorism' is similar to saying 'Peaceful terrorism' - the two cannot exist at the same time. Obviously there does have to be a recognition that these people may claim to be muslims, and claim to be furthering the ideals of Islam, although every Muslim would agree (and everyone else) that unprovoked killing of innocent people does nothing to further the ideals of Islam. Therefore it seems an insult to Muslims to even call terrorists Muslim or associate the word Islam and terrorism. Also, some people refer to "Islamic extremism" which gives the impression that 'Islamist' terrorists are extreme Muslims - when really they are not Islamic at all.   --Cap 13:29, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't buy the linguistic argument. Islam means "submission", while it may come from "Saalam"/peace it is not the same thing. It would translate as "submission terrorism", not "peace terrorism", if I understand the arabic correctly. --Josiah 02:52, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: To give another example, a hebrew word meaning "a lost thing" has a root word that means "destruction". If taken from the root word and combined with terrorism, it would be "destruction terrorism", but if taken by the actual word, it would mean "Misplaced Terrorism." Obviously, there is a huge difference.--Josiah 02:55, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamist terrorism an oxymoron? 

message: Once again Pename is trying to insert his so-called Timeline in articles where he combines military actions and historical wars along with recent terrorist activities, as if wars and recent terrorism are the same OneGuy 06:59, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Timeline

message: Aren't the Islamist terrorist groups motivations tied up in their interpretation of the meaning of jihad? :ChrisG 17:05, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jihad 

message: I am just wondering how naming is supposed to work out?
we use Jama'at al-Tawhid wal Jihad not Monotheism and Holy War Movement .... yet we use Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group and not Groupe Islamique Combattant Marocain.  So, it seems that for Arabic names we use transliteration and for French names we translate?  I don't quite understand it.... gren 14:27, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please correct it. Though in both cases, I would put the translation in parentheses and suffix both with a "...usually known by the <Arabic/French> nickname/initials <Jama'at/GIS/etc.>67.118.240.18 17:53, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming conventions 

message: The word has been used in the article before, not as a direct reference to Islamist Terrorism, but as an article of interest of those who want to read up on the entire issues of terrorism. What happened this morning is that a user by the name of Spastika took the word out, called it a POV. I reverted it, since nearly everything he did was reverted because of his possible pro-Arab pov pushing. I am not sure when the word was added to the article, but all I wanted to do is bring it back to a previous version. Zscout370 (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As said before, I was reverting an edit made by a vandal, which removed the word. I am happy to work with yall on trying to reach a consensus on inclusing of this link at the end of the article. Zscout370 (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Can you expand on that, please. I just want to know why could be it be considered installing POV by adding the link. Zscout370 (talk) 02:10, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Here is an article from a website called Faithfreedom.org. It compares between Islam and the Facsism movement, but from what I read, this has a huge anti-Arab POV. This one, is an article from Joseph Sorba, who is challenging people on how the term is actually defined. The other websites that even discuss the term are just blogs, which I stated earlier at the Islamofacism. Zscout370 (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I know you're not advocating this, but if faithfreedom.org is the standard we adopt for NPOV, this encyclopedia is in a great deal of trouble. As for the likelihood that Islamist movements are actually fascist, see the messy debate at Talk:Islamofascism. BrandonYusufToropov 18:03, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You win. I will drop it. Zscout370 (talk) 18:05, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I do agree that the first website I posted has a huge anti-Arab POV. Hell, this website says that Muhammad was a pedophile, rapist, murderer, etc. The second site, I know it is a blog, but it does pretty much say to those, like Rush Limbaugh, to define the term. And other than Limbaugh and a few blogs, I do not see anywhere notable or respectable this term is used.  As I mentioned earlier, I will drop the subject, will not add this word, since from what I am feeling here, the consensus is not to add the word. Now, I will take this off my watch list, but if you guys still need anything, just let me know on my talk page. Zscout370 (talk) 00:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamofacism 

message: I find it highly disingenuous to have this section present - there are numerous problems with the section as it stands.
# - the section is not referenced, and counts as original research. This is not allowed.
# - the verses presented as being against terrorism are themselves mansukh and inapplicable to modern Islam, except where taqiyya and kitman are being practiced.
Enviroknot 04:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is fully referenced, actually, with verse numbers and commentary names.  Your (unsourced) claim that these verses are abrogated contradicts the most widely used Tafsir, Tafsir Ibn Kathir, as well as the observations of most scholars.  As-Suyuti only recognizes 21 cases of abrogation, and Shah Waliullah reduces this to 5 (). - Mustafaa 17:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the "Verdict of the Koran" section 

message: Mel engaged in a revert war (causing a 24 hour block as punishment) over "but some believe it to be a smear against Islam" versus "but it is often thought to be a smear against Islam".
Words fail me, Mel. Might I suggest "Sorry, I was awake for 48 hours straight. Thanks for the block, as it helped me to admit my Wikipedia addiction. I am now in a 12 step program for Wiki-addicts, and my first step is to say sorry to those I hurt. Sorry." 4.250.201.44 23:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mel ... words fail me

message: This section badly needs help.  The Qur'an is a primary source which wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is not in the position to say how it should be interpretted.  An overwhelming majority of mufassir and fiqah may agree but that does not make it the verdict of the Qur'an.  Times change and how people interpret it could go back to killing is good, and that is what should be reported.  Christian interpretation has changed a lot over time.  The "verdict of the Bible" between 1400 and now would be immensely different.  (good analogy?)  In any case we need to make this section referenced by what important Muslim scholars say (and hopefully not subpar online sites) and possibly their notable scholarly critics.  The Qur'an only says what its interpretters believe, and that is what wikipedia does, it reports that, it doesn't say "what Muslims should believe" but what they do. gren 28 June 2005 05:45 (UTC)
:Most interpreters would agree with the anti-violence approach (know this through practice), but yes, it might need to be mentioned that some interpretations have a different approach although it is usually not within regard to the specific verses mentioned. Usually you would find political reasons, not religious even though some groups cite that and use various other verses as a different interpretation. The section does need some polishing, though. Thanks.--Anonymous editor June 28, 2005 05:53 (UTC)
:So you are saying that certain aspects of the qur'an don't benefit the development of islamic terroism? Come, whether you like it or not, it is only fair that islam's intolerance has to be a contributing factor terrorism. Why do most islamic nations have a horrible track record for human rights? Why is the Sheriat barbaric? A nation where stonning to death is ok for something as stupid as having children outside marriage is better place for development of terrorism, than a nation that at least aims to build a society where people's right and liberties are protected. Anonymous Reader August 3, 2005 22:23 (UTC)
*A scholarly interpretation, backed up with references, would work much better, but at the same time, there's not a lot of doubt what a spiritual text is going to say about terrorism. Peter Grey 7 July 2005 23:11 (UTC)
----
Why muslims have no choice but to hate infidels
My muslim brothers, if you wanna be a true muslim, you dont have much of a choice.
[Chapter 33 verse 36]
And it is not for a believer, man or woman, to have any choice in
their affairs, when God and His Apostle have decreed a matter: and
whoever disobeyeth God and His Apostle, erreth with palpable
error.
[33.36] And it behoves not a believing man and a believing woman that they should have any choice in their matter when Allah and His Apostle have decided a matter; and whoever disobeys Allah and His Apostle, he surely strays off a manifest straying.
No matter how nice those lovely infidels are, do not under any circumstances befriend them (unless you wanna go to hell).
[Chapter 3 verse 28]
Let not believers take infidels for their friends rather than
believers: whoso shall do this hath nothing to hope from God
unless, indeed, ye fear a fear from them: But God would have
you beware of Himself; for to God ye return.
[Chapter 4 verse 89]
They desire that ye should be infidels as they are infidels, and that
ye should be alike. Take therefore none of them for friends, till
they have fled their homes for the cause of God. If they turn back,
then seize them, and slay them wherever ye find them; but take
none of them as friends or helpers
[Chapter 60 verse 1]
O YE who believe! take not my foe and your foe for friends,
shewing them kindness, although they believe not that truth which
hath come to you: they drive forth the Apostles and yourselves
because ye believe in God your Lord! If ye go forth to fight on my
way, and from a desire to please me, and shew them kindness in
private, I well know what ye conceal, and what ye discover!
Who so doth this hath already gone astray from the even way.
And if you absolutely hate violence, do the violent act anyway because it is good for you even if you find it absolutely revolting. Remember, God knows what is good for you.
[Chapter 2 verse 216]
War is prescribed to you: but from this ye are averse.
Yet haply ye are averse from a thing, though it be good for you,
and haply ye love a thing though it be bad for you: And God
knoweth; but ye, ye know not.
It's okay to kill your fellow citizens, even your next door neighbours, if you are doing God's work.
[Chapter 9 verse 123]
Believers! wage war against such of the infidels as are your
neighbours, and let them find you rigorous: and know that God is
with those who fear him.
[9.123] O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).
[Chapter 66 verse 9]
O Prophet! make war on the infidels and hypocrites, and deal
rigorously with them. Hell shall be their abode! and wretched the
passage to it!
AND FINALLY, dying for Allah is the greatest bliss
[Chapter 9 verse 111]
Verily, of the faithful hath God bought their persons and their
substance, on condition of Paradise for them in return: on the path
of God shall they fight, and slay, and be slain: a Promise for this is
pledged in the Law, and in the Evangel, and in the Koran and who
more faithful, in to his engagement than God? Rejoice, therefore,
in the contract that ye have contracted: for this shall be the great
bliss. Ohanian 14:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verdict of the Qu'ran 

message: I started to edit this section and then realized it doesn't actually belong in this article as it doesn't speak to the issue of Islamist terrorism. The reason that Islamic or Arabic countries are resisting the treaty is because they feel that the Palestinians have a right to resist the Israeli occupation. --Lee Hunter 20:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I.e these objecting countires support terrorism. Klonimus 01:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: UN View of Terrorism

message: Civilization can only be saved when the last stone of the last temple falls on the last priest,rabbi or imam.I am not a communist.I believe in God.But I think religions didn't bring peace to people.They divided the people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.100.59.202 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 3 August 2005.
:Umm, I made this a new section... I'm not sure I see the point but it's not part of the UN view. gren グレン 18:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ?? 

message: *6/25/96- Khobar Towers, Saudi Arabia bombed. 20 dead, 372 injured.
*12/21/88- Pam Am flight 103 bombed. 259 killed
*7/14/85- TWA flight 847 hijacked. 1 killed
*5/15/72- Ma'alot massacre in Israel. School attacked. 26 killed, 70 wounded.
*9/4/72- Munich Olympics. 11 Israeli athletes killed
None of these were military targets. Jayjg (talk) 18:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See the List of Islamist Terorist Incidents discussion, above. They were terrorist incidents but the PLO is not an "Islamist" organization. Maa'alot was perpetrated by a Marxist-Leninist organization (a long long way from Islamist). Khobar was a military target. --Lee Hunter 18:10, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why were these attacks removed? 

message: This is pretty minor compared to most of the other stuff discussed here, but there's a subordinate clause at the end of the second paragraph of "Terrorist View" which has no predicate. "These groups believe that suicide bombers, as martyrs to cause of Jihad against the infidels, and entitled to the rewards of jannah for their actions." Presumably an "are" is missing somewhere, but I'm afraid to edit it since I'm not an authority on the subject and don't know what the original author was trying to say for sure. I'm just TheTypoPatrol 17:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence Fragment 

message: What's in a name?  Terrorism is terrorism, plain and simple.  The problem with people is that they don't want to see the truth for what it is--the majority of terrorist acts are committed by individuals/groups that use their Islamic beliefs as a foundation to justify violence.  There's no pretty way to say that.  If you truly want to be unbiased, quit sugar-coating Islamic terrorism and call it for what it is.
*You Said It!
:I am not sure I would agree with your rhetoric but I think that sometimes the terrorism is by Islamic and not Islamist groups.  However, I don't care enough to re-open the debate... which seemed to favor the current naming. gren グレン 17:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamic/Islamist Terrorism