Talk:Offensive jihad

message: The article mentions Yusuf Azzam and Sayyid Qutb as "Notable Proponents", the article even goes as far as to consider the former as a "Sunni scholar". However this is blatantly wrong since none of them is considered to be a scholar, especially Azzam who has been rebutted and considered as deviant.  --HakimPhilo (talk) 10:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Unreliable Sources

message: I think this article may be a violation of Wikipedia's policy of undue weight.  While I am not an expert on this subject, it was my understanding that The legitimacy of offensive Jihad was far from a settled subject, both among Muslims and non Muslims alike.  This article however leaves me with the distinct impression that offensive Jihad is generally accepted as OK, by only siting Muslim authorities (all of whom are conspicuously modern) who support the concept.  Additionally, the sources for the quote of Ahmad Husseini Al-Baghdadi, simply links to a site which requires the user to pay in order to see the material.  I will be doing some extensive revisions in a few days, if that is OK with all. Maxkbennett (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I  removed some mild npov, redundant, and off topic stuff.  Also if anyone else wants to take an interest, finding the opinions of some non-Muslims could be usefull here Maxkbennett (talk) 22:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

text: You need to cite your claims. --HakimPhilo (talk) 10:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Undue Weight

message: Is he really a notable?  it seems like one could list every crackpot terrorist with an axe to grind and give the (erroneous) impression that this is a settled issue.  If no one objects, I'm gonna remove that in a few days. Maxkbennett (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: regarding Husseini Al Baghdadi

message: Does anybody see that this page is totally illogical?
The majority of Muslim population are Sunnis. Therefore, if Sunnis allow fighting to concur a land, then this Muslim population would of always been active to concur more land. Shall we consider Osama Bin Laden a scholar? He calls himself a scholar, too.
I believe that a Scholar is someone that is largely followed, so I believe this whole page is a mistake, especially after reading these versus: [4:29] O you who believe, do not consume each others' properties illicitly - only mutually acceptable transactions are permitted. You shall not kill yourselves. GOD is Merciful towards you.AdvertAdam (talk) 02:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to think that their is only 1 correct true interpretation of islam.and you are following that?? you are right, everything else is wrong? otherwise you should stop blurting out verses of the quran to prove your point. because on wikipedia, you were told before, you can not use the quran as the main source.so saying the quran says "such and such" so this is wrong, or the quran says "such and such", so this is right, is not going to get you anywhere. Instead you should consider expanding the article and adding the views of the 4 schools of Islamic thought (not just views which agree with you),this article lacks the views of those 4 major sunni schools--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

text: The article should not be deleted since experts recognise that some scholars allows for offensive jihad. Yusuf Al-Qaradawi who proclaim adherence to defensive jihad states here that some jurists allows offensive jihad. Davidelah (talk) 01:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: @DavidElah, that was a very interesting read. Are we allowed to add the info in that article on wiki (as it seems really balanced), or does AdamRce think its an unreliable source. i would like to know AdamRce's view on adding this as a source, it is a muslim brotherhood website--Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

text: If you haven't read my reply here, I can write it again on your talkpage!    ~ AdvertAdam  talk 04:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

text: I don't think that you should keep accusing an editor of a discussion he started when he first started editing! No-one followed it then, and I won't follow it now.     ~ AdvertAdam  talk 05:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion Request: needing opinion

message: Are you considering this editor a credible writer? He's the one who wrote the source you added here. Again, for the millionth time, please reread WP:RS...    ~ AdvertAdam  talk 23:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: i dont know the editor.anyway, i have removed the enclyopedia of the orient source, on further inspection, the article is more like a blog of that editor--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro Insurtion 

message: This page appears to have few virtues, and is perhaps little more than a POV fork of Jihad. I'd suggest it be merged/redirected there William M. Connolley (talk) 22:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so, also. All what the article is talking about is two scholars. Jihad is divided to violent and non-violent, then violent is divided to offensive and defensive. It might also cool the dispute there! (I honestly couldn't find time to follow-up)    ~ AdvertAdam  talk 22:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

text: I don't think one editor against RSN is considered a fight :p. The second editor commented about my summary, not edit. I didn't disagree about the merge, but we still need to keep a balanced weight of Offensive Jihad and Defensive Jihad. Just keep that in mind :)    ~ AdvertAdam  talk 21:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge to Jihad?