Talk:Islamism

message: This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Noahroos98, Noahroos.
:A4700 g genral of 410503 152.57.192.92 (talk) 19:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

message: This used to be a separate article but after a 
vote it was moved here as a section. Wikipedia prevents it from becoming a separate article since the vote has been made against it. Trouble is, it's quite long, and this article is already too long.  I'm going to summarize it and put a main article link to Londonistan (term) 
Here's the summary --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Islamism in London

message: Not only this so called "Islamic Flag" is out of place, but the whole description and meaning of it seem to be taken out of some B-movie involving a stereotypical plot about "terrism". Either provide sources that it is indeed an "Islamic Flag" and that the description is true, or it will be deleted in accordance to WP:NOCITE. --Kray0n (talk) 11:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced material: "Islamic Flag" 

message: According to the same principles of notability and common agreement as applied to nazism being right-wing - popular tendency is to put islamism on the left wing of the political axis, and because Wikipedia is not a matter of original research, this tendency should result in Islamism actually being counted as left-wing on Wikipedia as well. The argument can be lifted verbatim from the article about nazism being right-wing. Maybe someone who knows the system here better can make the required changes, although I can provide references to individuals calling Islamism left-wing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.136.254 (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What? --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamism should be subsumed under the "Left-Wing" category 

message: http://picpaste.com/warning-about-islamism-00ToI1QX.jpg  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.106.151.118 (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Hollywood Subverted by Islamism

message: I trimmed this from the Islamism#Relation between Islam and Islamism section 
Scholars like like Javed Ahmad Ghamidi have argued that all the actions of the Prophet Muhammad do not form an example for Muslims to follow, a sunnah. He holds that the da'wah (preaching and propagation) by a Messenger of God has targets defined by God and are specific to him. The role of the individual believer, the scholars and even a state with Muslim domination is different from that of a Prophet. The Prophet can after making the message clear to his addressees, under God's direction, fight the rejecters of the message. The Qur'an, after this stage in the Prophetic mission of Muhammad, did not leave the polythiests of Arabia with an option to live and adhere to polythiesm. They were to be executed if they did not enter Islam. This option is not available to any after the Prophet since no one can know who is rejecting the Message knowingly for no one is in a position to interact with God and no one receives revelation from Him.Political Canon of Islam 
Reason: The article is already very long, the author is not particularly notable, and the text better belongs in Criticism of Islamism or Political aspects of Islam. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Trimming

message: An anon poster keesp adding Ismet Özel as a central figure of Islamism. He is an elected leader of a large country, but his he influential as an islamist? Does anyone have a source stating he is a central figure? In the mean time I'm deleting it again. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Central figures

message: I deleted edits by 95.147.234.97 (and he has restored them) as they are unsourced opinions, the topic (of diversity in Islam and Islamism) is already covered, and the article is already very long. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: edits by 95.147.234.97 in lead

message: Why does Radical Islam redirect here? Is there no way to distinguish violent Jihadists and the poltics of Al Queda from other more moderate Muslims? Bachcell (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: (I fixed your link.) Because someone created it as a redirect to here, plain and simple. Should someone wish to turn Radical Islam into a separate article from this one, possibly as an offshoot of this one, then it will be otherwise. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Radical Islam

message: An editor can't pull out a quote by someone, and accuse the quote of being Islamist. A reliable source needs to have made that allegation.
This is the same as pulling a quote from Daniel Pipes, and putting it at Islamophobia as an example. A reliable source needs to have made the allegation.Bless sins (talk) 11:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Accusations of Islamism

message: This article does mention even smaller movements, but fails to mention the Pakistan movement and the resultant blood-soaked partition of India. Without doubt, Pakistan movement is one of the most quintessential pieces of islamism in all of history. I am not used to this editing stuff, so i request editors to please see to this. 117.204.80.116 (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request - Pakistan movement 

message: Hi, fine to use term like "Islamism" and "Christianism" to represent political movements within these religions, if we do the same also for "Judaism", Buddhism", "Hinduism" etc.
However, you will notice that for other religions, the suffix "-ism" in no way carries a political connotation but rather describes the lump sum of religious content within the religion.  E.g. Judaism (V. 13.10.2010, 12:12) "Judaism is the "religion, philosophy, and way of life" of the Jewish people."  And Buddhism: Buddhism is a religion and philosophy encompassing a variety of traditions, beliefs and practices, largely based on teachings attributed to Siddhartha Gautama, commonly known as the Buddha (Pāli/Sanskrit "the awakened one").
By contrast Islamism: "Islamism is a set of ideologies holding that Islam is not only a religion but also a political system, and that modern Muslims must return to their roots of their religion, and unite politically."  And "Christianism" as above.
Shouldn't we be more consistent in application of the suffix "-ism"? And preferably use it only to apply to a body of religious content, as opposed to political movements, to avoid confusion.
To be consistent I have also added this discussion to the "Christianism" page.
There is criticism i Islamism, and radical Islam, but no criticism in radical christianity, or christianism, Wikipedia is so racist and annoying  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.96.110.121 (talk) 13:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Musa Emre - I see point.  Potentially someone with a negative POV regarding Islam wrote this lead.  What you really have to do though is find a variety of reliable sources on this issue and see how they define the word. NickCT (talk) 12:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Islamism#History of usage for clarification. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

text: The English language is not always logical or consistent (Why "rapist" and not "raper"? Is rape an ideology with theorists?) The issue is that there is an ideology of Islamism and it needs a word, even if the people professing the ideology do not like the use of that word. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

text: I've restored a short paragraph in the lead that was deleted that contains the sentence "Islamism is a controversial term and definitions of it sometimes vary." --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christianism, Islamism, Judaism 

message: The terms Islamist"  and "Islamism" are problematical because:
--They are almost entirely used  by outside critics and are not accepted by their target. Therefore they are not neutral terms.
--They have no agreed on definitions
--They are most often used with progandistic intent.
Note the fact there is no term "Christianist" in common usage even though there is a similar (though much smaller) movement among Christians. This nonparallelism partly reflects the fact that speakers who use the term "Islamist" are overwhelmingly from Christianized countries. 
We do need a term for politically mobilized fundamentalist Islamic ideology, and unfortunately there is no alternative term that is in wide use.
At the very least this article needs a separate section pointing out how problematic these terms is. The section on "relation with Islam" touches on these issues but has the wrong header for such a discussion.
Burressd (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read Islamism#History of usage, comment above and revised lead for clarification. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contested word 

message: We need citations as to which cou ntires this group operates in.Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Hizb ut-Tahrir 

message: WP:Weasel tag was added in September 2010 but ther has been no specific discussion of what problem it refers to ...  unless you include complaints above (Christianism, Islamism, Judaism and Contested Word) about the term Islamism itself and there not being an eqivalent article on Christianism in wikipedia. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasel tag

message: Typed in "islamic fanaticism" and got redirected here... WTF????
--Spmoura (talk) 14:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamic fanaticism 

message: Those possibly interested could base themselves upon this article written by Srđa Trifković ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sr%C4%91a_Trifkovi%C4%87 ) at http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2009/05/green-corridor-in-balkans.html .
I'll also put a link to this suggestion on the discussion page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sr%C4%91a_Trifkovi%C4%87 .  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.208.90.139 (talk) 07:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is no article yet about the 'green corridor' (in the Balkans) 

message: Dialectical Logic of Islamists (i.e., of the Lost):
Dialectical logic is found in the core of Eastern and Western thought. It is a common flaw to the human species. Although the various human cultures have developed their own methods of using this flaw, it is not simply a cultural defect. However, since each culture uses this flaw to to defend and to define itself, every attempt to correct the flaw is perceived to be an attack on the culture itself. Islamists are particularly sensitive to this perceived attack; because the dialectical Absolute of the Koran is found in the attempt to synthesize the Old and New Testaments (i.e., "the Book").
--FinalNotice (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dialectical Logic of Islamists 

message: An image used in this article, File:Portrait of Imam Khomeini.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Portrait of Imam Khomeini.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: The article should include recent developments of the Arab Spring ... admittedly still in progress. --BoogaLouie (talk) 00:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  updating needed 

message: I found a text that questions the whole existence of islamism, saying that islam and islamism are actually the same thing. I think that the source is not quite good enough, but once someone finds a better one, it could be included in the article as a criticism. A parallel: If someone heavily or even violently supports democracy, then is he a democraticist whose idea is democraticism, or is he simply a democrat? --Uikku (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Its as real as Christianism, i.e. no it doesn't really exist in any real sense. Yes people of the Islamic faith also form governments, and just like every other religion, their values system and moral framework influence their politics. Not that I think this article shouldn't be here. Wikipedia is all about hair thin distinctions and the separation of these isms comes from the secular crowd I think.Drunkenduncan (talk) 00:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does it really exist? 

message: Islam by nature is political so why the need for Islamism title. Giftanodegiftanode (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading title. 

message: It looks like someone was messing around in photoshop and decided to make this guy trippy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flobee (talk • contribs) 04:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is the portrait of Jamal ad-Din al-Afghani a file called "HypnoDude.jpg" 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Islamism's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "allamaiqbal.com":
From Muhammad Iqbal: 
From Pakistan: 
Reference named "books.google.co.uk":
From Democracy: Flyvbjerg, Bent, 2001, Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How It Can Succeed Again (Cambridge University Press), p. 154.
From Muhammad Iqbal: 
From Abu Bakr: Atlas of the Prophet's biography: places, nations, landmarks, By Shawqī Abū Khalīl, Pg205
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 06:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Islamism]] 

message: ===Deletion of citations===
Why did you delete these citations without even an edit summary?? --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Modudi never talked about "theodemocracy". In "Khilafet o mlookiat" he has condemned the whole idea of distinct institution of clergy in Islam. he was simply a Islamist democrat" not a "theodemocrat". --Ahmed 313-326 (talk) 01:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any evidence "Modudi never talked about 'theodemocracy'"?   Why do numerous authors say he did talk about "theodemocracy"? --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: it is a matter of meaning and understanding of word "theodemocracy". --Ahmed 313-326 (talk) 04:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I imagine it is, but you are not arbiter of it. If we have numerous authors saying he used the term and/or using the term in explaining his ideas there is no reason to delete the term.  --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

text: Although Google books provides only a snippet view of the article by Maududi, he uses the term "theo-democracy" (his quotes).  He appears not to have realized that the term was originally coined by Mormons.  TFD (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by ahmed 

message: Why did you delete these citations without even an edit summary?? --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of citations

message: Edits by Ahmed 313-326  have, among other things, eliminated the term "theodemocracy" that Maududi used. There is plenty of evidence this concept was important to his ideas (see here) --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Modudi never talked about "theodemocracy". In "Khilafet o mlookiat" he has condemned the whole idea of distinct institution of clergy in Islam. he was simply a Islamist democrat" not a "theodemocrat". --Ahmed 313-326 (talk) 01:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any evidence "Modudi never talked about 'theodemocracy'"?   Why do numerous authors say he did talk about "theodemocracy"? --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: it is a matter of meaning and understanding of word "theodemocracy". --Ahmed 313-326 (talk) 04:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I imagine it is, but you are not arbiter of it. If we have numerous authors saying he used the term and/or using the term in explaining his ideas there is no reason to delete the term.  --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

text: Although Google books provides only a snippet view of the article by Maududi, he uses the term "theo-democracy" (his quotes).  He appears not to have realized that the term was originally coined by Mormons.  TFD (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: "theodemocracy"

message: While editors have been waiting for Ahmed to reply, he's gone and made another deletion (I should have caught before) 
here deleting a sourced sentence 
It has been said of Sirhindi that he 'gave to Indian Islam the rigid and conservative stamp it bears today.'
.. and making no edit summary to explain why. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: another unexplained deletion

message: There is no point to the quotations in the lead [of wikipedia], which have in brackets [to clarify the point]. If there is a ref, you can just state the points without the quotes. --Inayity (talk) 14:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Take the quotations out the lead 

message: Should edits 
deleting the word "theodemocracy" -- describing the ideas of famed Islamist writer Abul A'la Maududi -- and deleting some other citations (with no edit summary) be allowed to stand. 
As explained above, Mawdudi and numerous authors have used the word "theodemocracy" to describe his ideas.
===History of issue===
* Have brought the issue up on the talk page (see above). did not get much of response from the editor (User:Ahmed_313-326)
* Listed dispute at Third Opinion (april 21 or 22).
* A couple of people responded, one asking ahmed a question (april 22) 
* Left notices  on ahmed's talk page
* Ahmed did not respond again on the talk page but in the mean time made another edit deleting a sourced sentence (april 24, see above) and not giving an edit summary
* Posted the problem on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, ahmed was notified. No reply from him. Notice closed "Inactivity of Ahmed 313-326" 
* ChrisGualtieri, who closed the dispute resolution case for lack of reply from ahmed, suggested I try  Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct but I wasn't sure it would qualify as it appears I am the only user whose clashed with ahmed in this particular issue.  
* Since then Ahmed has been active and has gotten an edit warring notice <BR>--BoogaLouie (talk) 18:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  My comment is part of this RFC. Even a simple Google search shows the term being used and referenced back to Maududi/Mawdudi numerous times. I just wanted to make clear that because it isn't in a dictionary and their is an active dispute, citing it is a requirement. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  My apologies if my comments were interpreted to be an attack on your position.  I viewed the issue as a separate (but still important) issue, but I see your point.  --Jackson Peebles (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Unexplained deletions

message: * Have brought the issue up on the talk page (see above). did not get much of response from the editor (User:Ahmed_313-326)
* Listed dispute at Third Opinion (april 21 or 22).
* A couple of people responded, one asking ahmed a question (april 22) 
* Left notices  on ahmed's talk page
* Ahmed did not respond again on the talk page but in the mean time made another edit deleting a sourced sentence (april 24, see above) and not giving an edit summary
* Posted the problem on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, ahmed was notified. No reply from him. Notice closed "Inactivity of Ahmed 313-326" 
* ChrisGualtieri, who closed the dispute resolution case for lack of reply from ahmed, suggested I try  Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct but I wasn't sure it would qualify as it appears I am the only user whose clashed with ahmed in this particular issue.  
* Since then Ahmed has been active and has gotten an edit warring notice <BR>--BoogaLouie (talk) 18:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: History of issue

message: *Restore deleted edits (for reasons given above). --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  My comment is part of this RFC. Even a simple Google search shows the term being used and referenced back to Maududi/Mawdudi numerous times. I just wanted to make clear that because it isn't in a dictionary and their is an active dispute, citing it is a requirement. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  My apologies if my comments were interpreted to be an attack on your position.  I viewed the issue as a separate (but still important) issue, but I see your point.  --Jackson Peebles (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Responses

message: >> Whither political Islam? (Lihaas (talk) 22:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: A Word About tide, discussants think unclear, indistinct, not prezies. That's why print with long sentences, kompleziert, little understood. Or, do it to blur the issue, do not talk interesting. Show Psy - Simptomen / Sorry /.1-CVH-420Peg (talk) 14:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excuse me  

message: I have flagged the "Counter-response" section as "dubious" insofar as it appears to confuse "Islamism" with "terrorism."* In my research, there is no indication that the USG has explicitly (or even implicitly) engaged in efforts to undermine political expressions of Islam (Islamism). The section was a bit too "post hoc ergo propter hoc" for Wikipedia. To be clear, the USG does does seek to counter violent terrorists who profess a faith in Islam, but does not (as far as I can tell) seek to counter Islamists or Islamism. The section does mention "violent Islamists," which is closer to reality, but the USG is still explicitly oriented toward "terrorism." It is below the usual standard of Wikipedia to conflate Islamism and terrorism without a much deeper discussion than what is included here.
* This also appears to have hidden the section, which was not my intent, but I am not savvy enough to know how to flag a section as questionable without hiding it entirely. I welcome changes by Wikipedia gurus that displays the section but notes my critique.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TX Ciclista (talk • contribs) 18:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counter-response 

message: Notice how the only people who use this word are white or work for the white media?  (I'm white, btw, but this wikipedia and I'm a volunteer).  Someone that is Islamic, like one of the countless Muslim genius's like Averroes or Avicenna or al-Khwarizmi, would not describe their work as "Islamist".  When Muhammad Ali didn't want to fight against Vietnam, his pacifism wasn't Islamist.  Sure, a true Muslim would not have supported or joined in the American war on Vietnam, but that is not called Islamism.  Rather, Islamism is a word invented by racists and imperialists and is a form of Orientalism  
I hereby nominate this page for deletion.  I'll be back.  
Teetotaler 27 July, 2014
:Absolute rubbish. Islamism = political Islam. Who the hell was suggesting Muhammad Ali was an Islamist? Where does the page suggest that any "true" Muslim would of refused to serve in Vietnam? What in the name of the Prophet Muhammad's camels did you get the idea that Islamism is just some racist agenda? What about all the numerous non-white persons that use the term to describe political Islam - what about all the non-white apostates who live in the shadow of the sword of Islamism, who use the term? And don't bother coming back. You're not censoring wikipedia. And I honestly can't believe I'm bothering to reply to this BS straw man-ridden comment. FYI - Criticizing certain Muslims for their political agendas is not racist. Criticizing Islam is not racist.--Somchai Sun (talk) 20:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  -  Teetotaler 31 July, 2014   — Preceding undated comment added 16:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to Delete this article.   

message: Why do we need  tags <BR>
(example: Some observers suggest Islamism's tenets are less strict, and can be defined as a form of identity politics or "support for [Muslim] identity, authenticity, broader regionalism, revivalism, [and] revitalization of the community".Fuller, Graham E., The Future of Political Islam, Palgrave MacMillan, (2003), p. 21)
<BR>when a citation is given? It seems like an excuse to mess up the article. 
Here is a example of even worse use: 
In this context, the publications of Jamal ad-din al-Afghani (1837–97), Muhammad Abduh (1849–1905) and Rashid Rida (1865–1935) preached Islamic alternatives to the political, economic, and cultural decline of the empire.Mortimer, Edward, Faith and Power, (1982), p.93, 237-240, 249 Muhammad Abduh and Rashid Rida formed the beginning of the Salafist movement,Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim World, Macmillan Reference, 2004, v.2, p.609The New Encyclopedia of Islam by Cyril Glasse, Rowman and Littlefield, 2001, p.19The Oxford Dictionary of Islam by John L. Esposito, OUP, 2003, p.275
Historical Dictionary of Islam by Ludwig W. Wadamed, Scarecrow Press, 2001, p.233see discussion section as well as the reformist Islamist movement.
Their ideas included the creation of a truly Islamic society under sharia law, and the rejection of taqlid, the blind imitation of earlier authorities, which they believed deviated from the true messages of Islam.Passion for Islam: Shaping the Modern Middle East: the Egyptian Experience by Caryle Murphy, p.46  Unlike some later Islamists, Salafists strongly emphasized the restoration of the Caliphate.Roy, Failure of Political Islam (1994), p.33
A sentence talking about Muhammad Abduh and Rashid Rida forming a movement is followed by a sentence using the pronoun "they" ... which is  tagged with .  
<BR>I ask you good people, who reading this is not going to make the obvious assumption that "they" refers to Muhammad Abduh and Rashid Rida? what reason can for their be for the tag except to make the article look bad to the casual reader? --BoogaLouie (talk)
--BoogaLouie (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unneeded {{who}} tags 

message: Is prophet Muhammad a Islamist too? He was political by establishing the first Muslim state in Medina. Was prophet Muhammad a central figure in Islamism, should we include that into the article? Moorrests (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  Information in articles must present what reliable conclude, not our conclusions.  TFD (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Moorrests, the question isn't whether we think Muhammad was an "Islamist", it's whether we can demonstrate that using reliable sources. It's not appropriate to stick his name into a sourced statement based on our own reasoning, suggesting the source says that when really it's our own original research. EastTN (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prophet Muhammad? 

message: Can somebody explain to me what is the difference between these two articles Political aspects of Islam and Islamism? Aren't they talking about the same topic. Shouldn't they be merged? Moorrests (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political aspects of Islam and Islamism? 

message: Jamal ad din afghani is not the originator of Salafism. His movement used the word salafi but now what is known as salafism today was established by the Wahhabi movement.The salafi movement is known today as Islamic modernism.It ispired the Contemporary islamist movements.
 
As for contemporary Salafism.It is the state religion of Saudi Arabia is according to Stephane Lacroix (a Postdoctoral Fellow and Lecturer at Sciences Po in Paris)
" As opposed to Wahhabism, Salafism refers here to all the hybridations that have taken place since the 1960s between the teachings of Muhammad bin ‘Abd al-Wahhab and other Islamic schools of thought. Al-Albani’s discourse can therefore be a form of Salafism, while being critical of Wahhabism"
(ref: https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/17210/ISIM_21_Al-Albani-s_Revolutionary_Approach_to_Hadith.pdf?sequence=1   , page-2)
and according to Dillon, Michael R:
" Salafism of 19th century under such key figures as Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, Muhammad Abdu, and Rashid Rida, which were referred to as Islamic modernists.  Their form of Salafism was fundamentally different from contemporary Salafism 
(ref: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a509109.pdf  , page-33)
The confusion you are facing can be understood from below qoute:
" There has been some confusion in recent years because both the Islamic modernists and the contemporary Salafis refer (referred) to themselves as al-salafiyya, leading some observers to erroneously conclude a common ideological lineage. The earlier salafiyya, however, were predominantly rationalist Asharis. During an interview in Jordan, one Salafi emphasized this distinction by citing Muhammad Abduh’s interpretation of the jinn, a creature referenced in the Qur’an. According to this respondent, Abduh’s understanding of the jinn as microbes or germs demonstrates his rationalist credentials: not only does it indicate a metaphorical approach to the Qur’an, but it also implies the influence of the West on his thinking.17 Muhammad Abduh and other similar thinkers are frequently excoriated as deviant rationalists. Some go as far as to claim they were British agents, planted to specifically undermine the purity of Islam."
(ref: http://archives.cerium.ca/IMG/pdf/WIKTOROWICZ_2006_Anatomy_of_the_Salafi_Movement.pdf  ,Page-212)
Many more proofs can be found
Ejaz92 (talk) 14:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  History, Jamal ad din al afghani 

message: I noticed that you redirected "Islamic extremist groups" to this page. Is there any distinction between Islamism and "Islamic extremism"? Jarble (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I know of. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 16:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 00:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: "Islamic extremist groups" redirect page

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Islamism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081206185623/http://english.aljazeera.net:80/NR/exeres/23E2EB3C-7B4F-4447-80CD-26EDAFEF18E8.htm to http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/23E2EB3C-7B4F-4447-80CD-26EDAFEF18E8.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120118182859/http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-25472708_ITM to http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-25472708_ITM
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120420195838/http://www.ourdialogue.com/m22.htm to http://www.ourdialogue.com/m22.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120213180856/http://muslimdecline.blogspot.com/ to http://www.muslimdecline.blogspot.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150108081525/http://www.youngmuslims.ca/online_library/books/tmott/ to http://www.youngmuslims.ca/online_library/books/tmott/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111129213824/http://www.ikhwanweb.com/Home.asp?zPage=Systems&System=PressR&Press=Show&Lang=E&ID=6674 to http://www.ikhwanweb.com/Home.asp?zPage=Systems&System=PressR&Press=Show&Lang=E&ID=6674
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120712234035/http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=35720 to http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=35720
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141107131744/http://therepublicofrumi.com/archives/liaquat19490309.html to http://therepublicofrumi.com/archives/liaquat19490309.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120518082127/http://www.businessweek.com:80/news/2012-05-10/islamists-predict-victory-as-algerians-head-to-the-polls to http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-05-10/islamists-predict-victory-as-algerians-head-to-the-polls
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141025141341/http://www.rnw.nl/africa/bulletin/algerias-islamists-confident-election-victory to http://www.rnw.nl/africa/bulletin/algerias-islamists-confident-election-victory
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120311001332/http://pas.org.my/v2/kertaskerja/AGS_Penjenamaan_Islam2.pdf to http://pas.org.my/v2/kertaskerja/AGS_Penjenamaan_Islam2.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111127082331/http://www.businessweek.com:80/news/2011-11-25/moroccans-vote-in-election-marking-shift-of-power-from-king.html to http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-11-25/moroccans-vote-in-election-marking-shift-of-power-from-king.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130726064347/http://www.isie.tn:80/Ar/image.php?id=722 to http://www.isie.tn/Ar/image.php?id=722
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110816064452/http://www.bbc.co.uk:80/london/content/articles/2005/09/08/kurtbarling_londonrisk_feature.shtml to http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/articles/2005/09/08/kurtbarling_londonrisk_feature.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111127082331/http://www.businessweek.com:80/news/2011-11-25/moroccans-vote-in-election-marking-shift-of-power-from-king.html to http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-11-25/moroccans-vote-in-election-marking-shift-of-power-from-king.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: People seem to be very inclined to removing parties or groups they don't perceive as extremists or terrorists from the list near the bottom of the article. Are we listing Islamic extremists and terrorist groups? If yes, the list does not belong in this article because this article doesn't define Islamism as the same as Islamic extremism. Or are we listing organisations which fall into the definition of Islamism as put forth in this article (even the moderate interpretations like Moderation and Development Party in Iran and Justice and Development Party (Turkey) (AKP))?  I just added an intro sentence for that section defining exactly what we're listing, but wanted more discussion before adding more groups. If a lot of people disagree with me that we should add AKP and MDP and other theocratic parties here, I think the definition of Islamism should be made far clearer in the article, since those two groups use Muslim identity politics to gain power, or have been widely described as such by others. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 20:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples of groups and parties 

message: Inasmuch as this is an English Language article, why do we have Arabic and Urdu characters in the introduction without including their English (Latin Alphabet) transliterations? This is typically done for foreign alphabets such as Greek. For example, in the Wikipedia article on Christ, the title is followed by the Greek source "ριστός", which is then Anglicized as "Christós". English speakers cannot ordinarily be expected to understand these entries without an Anglicized translation or transliteration. I am not suggesting that those non-English characters be removed, as they present valuable subsidiary information, however, it would be helpful to the reader should a competent editor add an English, i.e. Latin alphabet, transliteration. Tresmegistus (talk) 01:16, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Arabic and Urdu characters. 

message: Hello.
I have found various surveys that examine the views of Muslims around the world regarding different issues, including how many that prefer a system of Sharia law and its various applications. 
Of particular interest was a survey in 2013 from the highly respected PEW Research Center, which had performed interviews with 38000 Muslims in 39 different predominantly Islamic countries.
http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Topics/Religious_Affiliation/Muslim/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf 
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/
I believe that it is in the public interest, and in line with Wikipedia's ideal role as an unbiased fact-based educator, to showcase the relevant information matter-of-fact without any distortions. 
Thanks in advance for any help. David A (talk) 13:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Help and input would be very appreciated. David A (talk) 13:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  This survey is being used in Apostasy in Islam and Sharia, though I'm not sure how it would be used here. Eperoton (talk) 14:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we could check through it for the average percentages that support Sharia, and its more severe applications. I also have links to several more statistical surveys, but this one is the most thorough and prominent that I know about. David A (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

text: Here is a list of survey results that I googled. The larger page itself is obviously very biased, but the linked opinion poll statistics seem useful and matter of fact regarding how large percentages that hold different extremist beliefs: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/articles/opinion-polls.aspx David A (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  A cautious discussion of surveys on some issues associated with Islamism elsewhere in the article (especially Pew's sections "Islamic Political Parties" and "Religious Leaders’ Role in Politics" ) seems to be appropriate. I'm not sure about discussing Sharia support. As Pew's chapter illustrates, this is a complex subject, and it may be better left to the Sharia article. The other site seems to have mostly surveys on violence. I would also suggest naming the section "Surveys" or "Opinion polls". Islamism is more like socialism than catholicism in that a person may shift their opinion on these issues without a major change in their identity, hence "prevalence" sounds odd. Eperoton (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. That sounds sensible. Would you be willing to help out to sift through what may be relevant to include in such a section? I am not a scholar after all. I just read some articles citing PEW's survey, saw some videos by the Clarion Project, turned worried, and think that it seems to be in the public interest to know about the more reliable matter-of-fact statistics. David A (talk) 13:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not exactly a scholar either, but I play one on WP. :) I'll try to review how this article defines the nebulous notion of Islamism and how Pew formulated their questions. Eperoton (talk) 03:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. Thank you for the help. If you wish, feel free to check through the list of surveys as well. David A (talk) 11:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new "Prevalence" section? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Islamism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070927200116/http://www.hizb-ut-tahrir.info/english/constitution.htm to http://www.hizb-ut-tahrir.info/english/constitution.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Islamism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130201081908/http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iha4yWXW3Bq_srXitM5rYaY_siig?docId=6499bf4fff474bc6920d8f881c3b3062 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iha4yWXW3Bq_srXitM5rYaY_siig?docId=6499bf4fff474bc6920d8f881c3b3062
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110525185618/http://www.us.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/ReligionTheology/Islam/?view=usa&ci=9780195799309 to http://www.us.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/ReligionTheology/Islam/?view=usa&ci=9780195799309
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150325035152/http://merln.ndu.edu/archive/icg/Islamism2Mar05.pdf to http://merln.ndu.edu/archive/icg/Islamism2Mar05.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Islamism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.goethezeitportal.de/fileadmin/PDF/db/wiss/goethe/bhatti_iqbal.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Santasa99 deletes cited material saying that BH is an islamist state, with this comment: "(really, what should we quote, 2 obituaries as refs? 1 contradicting other - Editors need to prove its verifiability & notability WP:UNDUE ! not to mention, even if not contradictory, obituaries r insufficient for such claim of profound consequences.)"
Santasa99: Are you saying that BH is not an islamist state, and that is why you are deleting this material? Or are you deleting it because its inclusion gives WP:UNDUE weight to the source, even if the claim is true? 
I have the impression that you have a dog in this race - most of the edits you've made seem to be related to former Yugoslavia. Are you pushing a POV? 
FWIW, I will now give up here - I don't have time for wikipolitics, I'm not interested in wiki lawyering. I just try to make small improvements when I see defects in articles. MrDemeanour (talk) 07:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boznia/Herzegovina 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Islamism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150325035152/http://merln.ndu.edu/archive/icg/Islamism2Mar05.pdf to http://merln.ndu.edu/archive/icg/Islamism2Mar05.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: As has been noted in the section "Relation to Islam" Islamism is a controversial term. One could even argue that it is a typically Eurocentric colonialist term which prescribes Muslims the nature of their belief: On the one hand there is the good Islam, on the other hand and there is evil Islamism.
This implies a philosophical question: Is Evil an essential part or the basic nature of Islam, as asserted by its critics? I do not know whether there has been done any serious - non-polemical - philosophical research on an academic level on this topic, but to me it seems clear that the answer to this question will be of prime importance for political decision making.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.95.59.132 (talk) 10:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I understand, Islamism is defined as the political agenda to instill theocratic Sharia law as completely dominant, and above secular and democratic political systems. David A (talk) 14:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

text: Please note that WP is not a discussion forum (see WP:NOT#FORUM). Article talk pages are there for the sole purpose of discussing how to improve the corresponding article in accordance with WP policies. Thanks. Eperoton (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dear Eperoton, I think that the article needs a chapter on the philosophical implications of the term Islamism, because every term has this kind of implications. So far the article empirically traces the history of the term and the controversies around it. However, the article does not yet describe the different philosophical backgrounds and prerequisites of its history as well as the controversies. I argue for introducing a deep structure into the article in a way a New Historicist would do it. This simply is the current academic standard.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.95.59.132 (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Article content has to be backed up by reliable sources (WP:RS). If you're aware of academic sources dealing with this subject, you're welcome to summarize them in the article. Eperoton (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

text: Good places to look for current academic authorities on Islamic origins are Brill's Encyclopedia of the Quran and the Qur'an Seminar at Notre Dame. Just be sure you're aware of WP's no original research policy and particularly its editorial synthesis section. Eperoton (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosophical Implications of the Terms Islamism and Islamists 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Islamism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304115350/https://www.ikhwanweb.com/uploads/lib/N68YF4S6MM9K6TM.pdf to http://www.ikhwanweb.com/uploads/lib/N68YF4S6MM9K6TM.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050506190825/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk:80/default.asp?page=story_28-5-2003_pg3_6 to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_28-5-2003_pg3_6
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150908034259/https://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/M_PIR/Default.htm to http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/M_PIR/Default.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/62453/robert-s-leiken-and-steven-brooke/the-moderate-muslim-brotherhood
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120229132114/http://umno-online.com/?page_id=2787 to http://umno-online.com/?page_id=2787
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120229132114/http://umno-online.com/?page_id=2787 to http://umno-online.com/?page_id=2787
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://merln.ndu.edu/archive/icg/Islamism2Mar05.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Sex segregation is the bloodline of Islam/Islamism.--98.88.130.250 (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That may very well be, but you need to insert references. David A (talk) 05:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

text: Also it is not, it is one fascite of Islamism. In fact Islamism is a morally and socially conservative fundamentalist take on Islam, of which Gender segregation (and Islam is not alone in this) is part (bit not the whole).Slatersteven (talk) 10:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sex segregation 

message: Per WP policy (WP:V, WP:NOR), to be added here, a definition has to match the phrasing given by some reliable source. It does not seem to appear in any of the citations. If you believe it does, please quote below the exact passage where it appears. Adding more citations that do not support the added content does not help you meet WP policy, so please stop trying to readd improper citations that have already failed verification. Eperoton (talk) 16:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  New improperly sourced definition 

message: The body of the article has a reasonably extensive discussion of the diverse uses of the term "Islamism", but the lead doesn't do a good job summarizing it. The definition right away makes the misstep of asserting that Islamism is a "movement", when it is rather a term that is used with various meanings and can refer to many different movements. I'll start by replacing the definition, which is sourced to weak tertiary sources, by a summary of tertiary sources which are also secondary (i.e., written by academic specilists - see WP:PSTS). Eperoton (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: It's not clear what the "Generally speaking" in the source refers to, but there's no indication that it refers to "Western media". Please explain 1) why you think we should highlight an opinion column, which is not a WP:RS; 2) what value it would add to all the definitions we already have in that section. Thanks. Eperoton (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Column piece 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 13 external links on Islamism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2006%20Opinion%20Editorials/February/27o/Wikipedia%20Good%20Intentions%2C%20Horrible%20Consequences%20By%20Abid%20Uallah%20Jan.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071129203155/http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20051101facomment84601/peter-bergen-alec-reynolds/blowback-revisited.html to http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20051101facomment84601/peter-bergen-alec-reynolds/blowback-revisited.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090306151209/http://www.qfis.edu.qa/files/pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20QFIS_Scholarships%202009-2010.pdf to http://www.qfis.edu.qa/files/pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20QFIS_Scholarships%202009-2010.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://english.daralhayat.com/Spec/12-2003/Article-20031205-4343f65c-c0a8-01ed-0012-e4cdc62232f8/story.html
*Added  tag to http://www.ikhwanweb.com/Home.asp?zPage=Systems&System=PressR&Press=Show&Lang=E&ID=6674
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111223182128/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1159193396891&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1159193396891&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/62453/robert-s-leiken-and-steven-brooke/the-moderate-muslim-brotherhood
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605124425/http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=35720 to http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=35720
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=35720
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071129203155/http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20051101facomment84601/peter-bergen-alec-reynolds/blowback-revisited.html to http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20051101facomment84601/peter-bergen-alec-reynolds/blowback-revisited.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150219092526/http://mawtani.al-shorfa.com/en_GB/articles/iii/features/2015/02/13/feature-01 to http://mawtani.al-shorfa.com/en_GB/articles/iii/features/2015/02/13/feature-01
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120324121609/http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/michael-j-totten/no-america-and-no-radical-islam to http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/blog/michael-j-totten/no-america-and-no-radical-islam
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070728035618/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_17-9-2002_pg4_2 to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_17-9-2002_pg4_2
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130117043505/http://ikhwanweb.com/article.php?id=29851 to http://ikhwanweb.com/article.php?id=29851
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The results from the largest statistical Muslim opinion poll ever made, interviewing 38000 Muslims in 39 different countries. Among other things, 84% of the population of Afghanistan want all "adulterers" to be stoned to death:
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/
http://www.pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Topics/Religious_Affiliation/Muslim/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf
42% of young Muslims in France, and 35% of young Muslims in Britain support suicide bombings:
http://www.pewresearch.org/files/old-assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf#page=60
Further information about the subject. Among other things, 59% of all Palestinians support suicide bombings:
http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/01/concerns-about-islamic-extremism-on-the-rise-in-middle-east/pg-2014-07-01-islamic-extremism-10/
33% of Muslims students in France are sympathetic towards terrorism:
http://www.la-croix.com/France/Exclusion/La-tentation-radicalite-chez-jeunes-musulmans-banlieue-2017-03-20-1200833366
There are 23000 Jihadists in Britain:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/huge-scale-of-terror-threat-revealed-uk-home-to-23-000-jihadists-3zvn58mhq
Only 34% of British Muslims would contact the police if somebody they knew had been involved with terrorism:
http://www.icmunlimited.com/polls/icm-muslims-survey-for-channel-4/
17000 French Muslims are known to be potential terrorists:
https://theintercept.com/2017/05/05/france-doesnt-know-what-to-do-with-the-17000-people-it-labels-potential-terrorists/
18884 Belgian Muslims are known to have connections to terrorism:
http://mobile.lesoir.be/1487295/article/actualite/belgique/2017-04-21/18884-personnes-fichees-pour-terrorisme-en-belgique
The Jihadists are winning the propaganda warfare with western countries, which drastically increases radicalisation, and turns it harder to stop: 
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-39448987
The Islamic State has 30000 Internet pages that spread its propaganda:
http://www.newsweek.com/isis-has-30000-website-strong-virtual-caliphate-warns-eu-terror-chief-632534?amp=1
A study about jihadism and islamic radicalisation in the western countries:
https://icct.nl/publication/fear-thy-neighbor-radicalization-and-jihadist-attacks-in-the-west/
21% of Syrians support ISIS:
https://www.statista.com/chart/4227/support-for-isis-in-muslim-countries/
Europol reports that the Islamic State is radicalising Muslim immigrants into jihadists:
https://www.europol.europa.eu/newsroom/news/islamic-state-changing-terror-tactics-to-maintain-threat-in-europe
Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States are directly inciting Islamist extremism in Europe via their thousands of Wahhabist/Salafist mosques:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/saudi-arabia-gulf-states-fund-islamic-extremism-germany-salafism-wahhabism-qatar-kuwait-islamists-a7473551.html
The Saudi-financed Salafist/Wahhabist mosques in Germany are even too extremist for Syrians:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-germany-mosques-insig-idUSKCN12S0HE
Saudi Arabia and Qatar directly finance and give logistics aid to the Islamic State terrorist organisation:
https://theintercept.com/2016/10/12/hillary-clinton-acknowledges-saudi-terror-financing-in-hacked-email-hinting-at-tougher-approach/
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/clinton-foundation-donors-saudi-arabia-and-qatar-give-isis-clandestine-financial-and-logistic-support-says-hillary-clinton-in-leaked-emails-35121625.html
The Global Gender Gap Report for 2016. The Islamic countries are at the bottom of the list:
http://reports.weforum.org/global-gender-gap-report-2016/rankings/
64% of the men in Egypt admit to having sexually harrassed women:
http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2017/06/15/532977361/why-do-men-harass-women-new-study-sheds-light-on-motivations
Saudi Arabia has been elected into the United Nations women's rights council:
https://www.unwatch.org/no-joke-u-n-elects-saudi-arabia-womens-rights-commission/
Over 60% of the populations of Austria, France, and Belgium want a complete stop for Muslim immigration:
https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/what-do-europeans-think-about-muslim-immigration#
Several statistics regarding what Europeans think about Islam, terrorism, and national security:
https://global.handelsblatt.com/politics/looking-to-germany-to-protect-the-world-order-779939/
How the Islamic State indoctrinates children:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/for-the-children-of-isis-target-practice-starts-at-age-6-by-their-teens-theyre-ready-to-be-suicide-bombers/2016/10/06/3b59f0fc-8664-11e6-92c2-14b64f3d453f_story.html
240 textbooks in United Nations sponsored schools in Palestine teach the Muslim children to murder Jews:
http://jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Palestinian-text-books-in-UNWRA-schools-reportedly-teach-of-killing-Jews-472012
Iran with nuclear weapons would be a bigger threat than Syria and North Korea combined:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/iran-is-a-bigger-threat-than-syria-and-north-korea-combined-1492210411
The ongoing genocide on Christians in the Middle-East will likely have exterminated all of them within 10 years:
http://www.acnuk.org/persecuted
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/christianity-on-course-to-disappear-in-parts-of-middle-east-as-ethnic-cleansing-continues-report-a6728831.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3311716/Christians-face-wiped-Middle-East-TEN-YEARS-killed-ISIS-forced-flee-persecution-warn-Catholic-aid-groups.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bloody-sunday-on-joyous-holiday-parents-search-for_us_58ebeab6e4b081da6ad006c0?
13 Islamic countries where atheism is punished by death:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/10/atheists-death-penalty-_n_4417994.html
10 countries where homosexuality is punished by death:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/13/here-are-the-10-countries-where-homosexuality-may-be-punished-by-death-2/
The Islamic countries where apostasy is punished by death:
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/apostasy/
Bill Gates says that bioterrorism is one of the greatest existential threats to humanity, alongside nuclear war and global warming:
http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/18/technology/bill-gates-bio-terrorism/index.html
The Muslim Brotherhood spends a great amount of money on lobbying, to avoid the terrorist designation:
http://mobile.wnd.com/2017/03/muslim-brotherhood-spending-millions-to-fight-terror-designation/
David A (talk) 15:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have an edit to suggest?Slatersteven (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not good with massive re-editing of articles in a proper academic manner. I am however pretty good at finding important information, and am extremely worried about this issue, so I am hoping that more skilled editors will be able to incorporate some of the information. David A (talk) 16:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That is why you suggest one edit at a time. Just providing a wall of links is not a good way to go To illustrate, this article is not about Islam, so articles about Islamic countries are irrelevant, what they need to be talking about is Islamism.Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I have found far too much information for that procedure. However, I would appreciate your and other editors' help in sifting through and finding what is useful. David A (talk) 17:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly all I have looked at so far looks largely irrelevant, articles about (for example) general terrorism have no usefulness here. This just looks like a rather random list of articles related to terrorism (irrelevant to this article), Islam (irrelevant to this article) or material better placed in articles about specific subjects (like ISIL).Slatersteven (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think that these are largely very informative links, with important information. Dismissing all of them wholesale, rather than picking and choosing, seems very unreasonable. David A (talk) 18:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It is down to you to prove they have useful and informative information, not me. So what does the bill Gates article (for example) have to say about Islamism, why should it be included in the article?Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Ideally, Wikipedia editors should be concerned with helping each other to get out the truth about the nature of reality, not to argue against informing the public. The Bill Gates article is just one of many, and should not serve as a convenient distraction from the main issues, but Islamic terrorism is far more prevalent than all other forms, and once it starts to efficiently use bioterrorism weapons, millions will likely die. David A (talk) 18:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  No Wikipedia editors should make suggestions about how to improve an article, not ask others to make them without explaining what they want. As another example of the problem here, the Daily mail (any more) is not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Various important statistics and articles 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Islamism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120305000639/http://www.aml.org.pk/AllamaIqbal.html to http://www.aml.org.pk/AllamaIqbal.html
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120525084606/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.foreignaffairs.com%2Farticles%2F62453%2Frobert-s-leiken-and-steven-brooke%2Fthe-moderate-muslim-brotherhood to http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070301faessay86208/robert-s-leiken-steven-brooke/the-moderate-muslim-brotherhood.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Islamism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130525063630/http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2008/spring_governance_galston.aspx to http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2008/spring_governance_galston.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I do on a personal level have full empathy for every citizen of Turkey who might feel embarrassed by seeing mentions of AKP/Erdogan promotion of Islamism in this article. However, as the topic has numerous coverage in media for many years, it cannot simply be ignored from an encyclopedic approach to Islamism. You might wish to improve the article by elaboration, but bulk deletion cannot be an option. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 11:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to see a better source for this.Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently I plan to take my time somewhen in the rest of the year to further elaborate in Turkey subsections both in the country section and in the international promotion section, and will certainly include many sources. I would appreciate each and every collaboration. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 12:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Put them here, and any suggested text so we can judge it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do not bulk delete content related to AKP/Erdogan promotion of Islamism 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Islamism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304104630/https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/articles/africa/8087-how-credible-is-the-claim-of-the-failure-of-political-islam to https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/articles/africa/8087-how-credible-is-the-claim-of-the-failure-of-political-islam
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923060400/http://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/Militant%20Sanctuary%20in%20Afghanistan%20Map_090915%20%283%29_0.pdf to http://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/Militant%20Sanctuary%20in%20Afghanistan%20Map_090915%20%283%29_0.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article here is written in the same vain as "jihad".
Jihad does not mean war and killing for the sake of Allah, it means the struggle to practice ones faith. Yet the meaning has changed and become very specific. Just because other people are using the word as propaganda (Both ISIL and various newscasters) it doesn't mean you change the original meaning.
In the same vain, a Islamist is synonymous with a Muslim which is synonymous to Islam. A Islamist is someone who follows Islam and a Islamist view would regard the thoughts of the sharia of Allah as stated in the book of the recitation, the Quran. 
If you have a lack of understanding of Islam, then the authors of the page should not be writing it, because it's clear they don't understand. Anything that is Islamist is backed up with the Quran and yet the Quran is hardly used as a references for most Islamic articles.
Marcramarcram (talk) 18:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Another biased article

message: Recently I came to know a spine chilling news that atheists are being considered as terrorists in Arab. Whats the matter? And such a serious matter should be immediately entered in Wikipedia. 
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-declares-all-atheists-are-terrorists-in-new-law-to-crack-down-on-political-dissidents-9228389.html 
2405:204:4313:D858:9C42:A500:6274:3CED (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: What has this to do with this article?Slatersteven (talk) 07:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This is being spammed over a range of Talk pages. Editor2020 (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this matter that atheists are being considered as terrorist? 

message: I notice the article seems to be lacking information about Islamism in European countries. Given a rise in Islamophobia across the continent, many Muslim-dominant and Muslim-focused parties have emerged. These should be included in the article, painting a picture of how diverse the Islamist movement is and what its priorities, structures, etc. look like based on differing regions.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noahroos (talk • contribs) 18:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamism in Europe 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The most ridiculous thing about the whole moslem thing is that Allah is Jesus and they are just a schismatic sect that has been utterly corrupted by their Sheiks, Imams and clerics.  It has always just been a power and money grab that they have tortured the earth with for over 1,300 years.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.146.83.207 (talk) 15:51, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we believe that Jesus was a prophet, not the son of Allah. Because we don't believe that Allah has any partners in divinity. For futher information, please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam 2600:6C4E:1200:1E85:EC4B:413:D10F:95C6 (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allah 

message: The quote from Maududi that User:Iskandar323 deleted is found in more than one posting of a full text of the work Towards Understanding Islam. Here is another not from archive.org: https://zulkiflihasan.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/towardsunderstanding.pdf It is from a blog of a DR. ZULKIFLI HASAN, but looking at the posting (of an e-book published by UKIM Dawah Centre) there certainly seems to be no reason to declare it "unreliable". --Louis P. Boog (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Louis P. Boog: geocities.com was the problem with that source - it is, as far as I am aware, a self-published domain, and the exact provenance and integrity of any of material available on such a domain is fundamentally unverifiable. If you  wish to reinclude that quote, why not simply quote the source directly?  But even so, isn't this a primary source for Maududi's thoughts? Iskandar323 (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't understand. How can the published work of an author not be considered a sources for his thoughts? Especially for a person most famous for his published work?? --Louis P. Boog (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Louis P. Boog: To be clear, I have little interest and/or skin in the inclusion of the quote one way or another. I was merely working to clean up what is an incredibly bloated page, and sources hosted at patently unreliable domains are typically a pretty reasonable place to start. geocities.com is additionally a domain that is flagged by the unreliable.js script. However, to the thrust of your question, I was not familiar with the work and simply saw a blog. Now that I am aware that Towards Understanding Islam is a work of some prominence, even though I can't precisely pinpoint the original publisher, I have no particular objections to it. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Iskandar323: I too have a strong desire to cleaning up the mess that is the Islamism article and hope we will not be working at cross purposes. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Louis P. Boog: If you want the quote to endure, however, I suggest citing it to Google Books - you can always link the book's name on page and then add any potential useful online copies in its external links. Otherwise, I wouldn't rule out another trigger-happy editor like me just coming along, seeing wordpress and having the red mist descend. As it is, even without those issues, your reference is currently afflicted with an error. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Iskandar323 cite added. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:   Maududi quote 

message: The quote from Maududi you keep deleting is found in more than one posting of a full text of the work Towards Understanding Islam. Here is another not from archive.org: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Islamism&diff=next&oldid=1134872162 There certainly seems to be no reason to declare it "unreliable". --Louis P. Boog (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Louis P. Boog: geocities.com was the problem with that source - it is, as far as I am aware, a self-published domain, and the exact provenance and integrity of any of material available on such a domain is fundamentally unverifiable. If you  wish to reinclude that quote, why not simply quote the source directly?  But even so, isn't this a primary source for Maududi's thoughts? Iskandar323 (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't understand. How can the published work of an author not be considered a sources for his thoughts? Especially for a person most famous for his published work?? --Louis P. Boog (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Louis P. Boog: To be clear, I have little interest and/or skin in the inclusion of the quote one way or another. I was merely working to clean up what is an incredibly bloated page, and sources hosted at patently unreliable domains are typically a pretty reasonable place to start. geocities.com is additionally a domain that is flagged by the unreliable.js script. However, to the thrust of your question, I was not familiar with the work and simply saw a blog. Now that I am aware that Towards Understanding Islam is a work of some prominence, even though I can't precisely pinpoint the original publisher, I have no particular objections to it. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Iskandar323: I too have a strong desire to cleaning up the mess that is the Islamism article and hope we will not be working at cross purposes. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Louis P. Boog: If you want the quote to endure, however, I suggest citing it to Google Books - you can always link the book's name on page and then add any potential useful online copies in its external links. Otherwise, I wouldn't rule out another trigger-happy editor like me just coming along, seeing wordpress and having the red mist descend. As it is, even without those issues, your reference is currently afflicted with an error. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Iskandar323 cite added. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion from  Iskandar323 talk page

message: This definition:  
:a religio-political ideology which posits that modern states and regions should be reconstituted in constitutional, economic and judicial terms, in accordance with what is conceived as a revival or a return to authentic Islamic practice in its totality.
has got to go. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 18:44, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Slatersteven (talk) 18:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Unreadable gobbledygook. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede is badly in need of rewriting 

message: The text says: Syrian Sunni cleric Muhammad Rashid Riḍā, a fervent opponent of Westernization, Zionism and nationalism, advocated Sunni internationalism through revolutionary restoration of a pan-Islamic Caliphate to politically unite the Muslim World.
I can’t access the sources quoted at the end of the sentence but do they honestly support this assertion? I am somewhat surprised because Albert Hourani and others (I think Elizabeth Thompson as well) have argued Rida’s conceptualisation of the caliphate was framed in nationalistic terms. Interested if anyone can enlighten? Yr Enw (talk) 09:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rashid Rida 

message: Wikipedia prefers common terminology, not formal; certainly not when the terminology changes direct quotes such as those from this article.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formal terminology