Talk:War on Islam controversy

message: This seems less ambiguous and more widely used. Any objections? --BoogaLouie 17:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ‘War on…’ or ‘War against…’, either is fine by me. So long as the article stresses that this is a perceived and alleged ‘war’ than an actual war, then either is fine. Chwyatt 07:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please make it "War against Islam" rather than "War Against Islam". Other than that it is fine by me.Bless sins 16:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Change name to [[War Against Islam]]

message: Wikipedia is not a loudspeaker for Bin Laden, nor are we the al-Qaeda press. It seems that every instance of "war against Islam" mentioned by extremist groups is mentioned here, while very little attention is given to academic and reliable sources.
Academic reliable sources don't exist, you say? That would be a just cause for deletion. If they do exist please use them instead of publishing Bin Laden's rhetoric.Bless sins (talk) 04:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a loudspeaker for Bin Laden 

message: It seems that the only thing in the part about criticism is:
:An example of what may be referred to as Islam's war against the West is this fatwa issued by Osama bin Laden:
Then the fatwa itself is qouted. How is that any form of criticism? He is a proponent of the idea! --Maha Odeh (talk) 09:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: What does the pictures of abuse in Abu Ghraib have to do with a war on Islam? Prisoner abuse, war crime, racism...war on Islam? It is doubtful if the prisoners were any more or less persecuted than Christian Arabs would have been... Unless there is some rational, I am removing the picture as unnecessary, undefined and inflammatory. There is no discussion of Abu Ghraib in the article. 75.3.230.66 (talk) 22:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abu Ghraib 

message: Naked POV and completely one-sided.  The Crusades happened in a vacuum? The Muslims were content to live peaceably side by side with Christians in the Mideast and even in Europe?  Perhaps a mantion might be in order of how Islam got there- by armed conquest in the name of Muhammed. Christendom might be excused for feeling a little nervous. The First Crusade was Urban II's response to the Byzantine's plea for help against the invading Turks.Solicitr (talk) 07:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to make it a bit more balanced. --BoogaLouie (talk)
I agree this piece is awful.  From the article: "American authorities have been unable to establish any direct link between Islam and the Fort Hood Shooting."  - Really?  I believe the killer exclaimed "God is great" as he began his murderous rampage.  What kind of link do you have in mind?  Cutugno (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Crusades etc

message: In this section there is a fatwa by Osama bin Laden is mentioned. I think it is irrelevant in the section. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of the idea that there is a war against Islam 

message: Post at my talk page - BoogaLouie (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Does a "War against Islam" mean "actual military activity" against Muslim populations?

message: Memoirs Of Mr. Hempher, The British Spy To The Middle East or Confessions of a British Spy is a document purporting to be the account by an 18th century British agent, Hempher, and his manipulation of a gullible Muslim into creating the conservative Islamic reform movement of Wahhabism.   
   
According to the book, Hempher, the British spy, working in the early 1700s, disguises himself as a Muslim and infiltrates the Muslim Ottoman Empire with the goal of weakening it. He tells his readers: "when the unity of Muslims is broken and the common sympathy among them is impaired, their forces will be dissolved and thus we shall easily destroy them... We, the English people, have to make mischief and arouse schism in all our colonies in order that we may live in welfare and luxury."HizmetBooks For this purpose, Hempher enlists "a gullible, hotheaded young Iraqi in Basra named Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab". Hempher corrupts and flatters Wahhab until the man is willing to found his own sect. 
Bernard Haykel of Harvard's Olin Institute describes the document as an anti-Wahhabi forgery, "probably fabricated by one Ayyub Sabri Pasha".» Anti-Wahhabism: a footnote Middle East Strategy at Harvard However, according to Haykel, the document has significant currency in the Middle East.
<HR>
As for the article being limited to actual military activity against Muslim populations, the lead states it is about a perceived campaign to harm, weaken or even annihilate the religion of Islam, using military, economic, social and cultural means.  The Confessions of a British Spy book has Hempher stating that his goal is to "destroy" Muslims which I think we can all agree is a war-like action. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Confessions of a British Spy''

message: Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia may not use propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, political, religious, or otherwise. So why does this page remain unchanged???
Thriving1 (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment moved from article 

message: I do not see any sense in having that picture in this article other than to promote a blatant POV - ie, WTC was attacked by Muslims, hence a war against them is justified. Those opinions are quoted under "Justification for a war", alright, but putting a popular image there is trying to push a POV and should be removed as I do not see any other sense how it supplements the article  Zencv Whisper 22:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and removed the picture. The section still needs work like renaming, restructuring or removing of information. IQinn (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  WTC burning picture : Justification for a war 

message: Has used the phrase to state we are NOT fighting a "war on islam". Now if only Anwar al-Awlaki could agree. Redhanker (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43 all said the same thing. What's your point? Klopek007 (talk) 05:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obama 

message: In the justification section, it's a good idea to write anti non-Muslim quotes in quran, and the fact that Quran is riddled by such quotes. e.g. - 
“And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for God.  But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers.”
“Let there be no compulsion in religion:  Truth stands out clear from error:  whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy handhold, that never breaks.  And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.”
“Again and again will those who disbelieve, wish that they had bowed (to God's will) in Islam.   Leave them alone, to enjoy (the good things of this life) and to please themselves: let (false) hope amuse them: soon will knowledge (undeceive them).”  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.176.125 (talk) 08:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Bible is off topic 1 Carniole House (talk) 08:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  anti non-Muslim quotes in Quran 

message: How about the fact that the Muslims invaded the Levant in the first place, so the church can be justifiably said to be reclaiming what it thought was land it should control? 94.14.17.223 (talk) 09:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The land was never controlled by western European nations, only the Byzantines had any rightful claim to it.173.67.20.63 (talk) 23:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the Crusades 

message: While the concept and criticisms are notable, the article is very poorly written and sourced and quite POV. If it was cut back by half or 2/3 to just the most neutral WP:RS it might stand on its own. But somebody's got to do the work. Otherwise it needs merging so that those who search this term are redirected to something relevant. CarolMooreDC 13:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: *Oppose - they're entirely different. This article is about a term or a concept, War on Terror is about a military campaign or a period of history. While I agree this article needs much improvement, redirecting it to War on Terror would be highly POV and inappropriate. Robofish (talk) 14:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge to war on terror?

message: From the Usage section:
:"According to scholar David Cook, what some believe is scriptural evidence for the existence of the alleged war is found in a popular hadith, one that supposedly prophesies a war against Islam "is the Tradition of Thawban":"
How could a prophesy of future events possibly constitute evidence for those (alleged) events?  This is just theology, and contributes nothing by way of proof or reasoning.    Heavenlyblue (talk) 17:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prophesy 

message: From the Usage section:
:"...a popular hadith, one that supposedly prophesies a war against Islam "is the Tradition of Thawban"
Does this mean "one that supposedly prophesies [that] a war against Islam "is the Tradition of Thawban""?
Or should it read "in the Tradition of Thawban"?
Also, some explanation of who Thawban is should be given.  I see a possible citation (http://trueislamicstories.blogspot.ca/2007/11/thawban-companion-of-holy-prophet-pbuh.html) describing him as a freed slave of Mohammed.  This seems to mean 'Mohammed's slave who was freed', or should it be taken to mean 'a slave freed by Mohammed'?    Heavenlyblue (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thawban 

message: :"According to scholar David Cook, what some believe is scriptural evidence for the existence of the alleged war is found in a popular hadith, one that supposedly prophesies a war against Islam "is the Tradition of Thawban"[clarification needed]:[17]
::The Messenger of God said: The nations are about to flock against you [the Muslims] from every horizon, just as hungry people flock to a kettle. We said: O Messenger of God, will we be few on that day? He said: No, you will be many in number, but you will be scum, like the scum of a flash-flood, without any weight, since fear will be removed from the hearts of your enemies, and weakness (wahn) will be placed in your hearts. We said: O Messenger of God, what does the word wahn mean? He said: Love of this world, and fear of death.[18]
:On the authority of Thawbaan, Mohammad said:[19]
::“The People will soon summon one another to attack you as people when eating invite others to share their food.” Someone asked, “Will that be because of our small numbers at that time?” He replied, “No, you will be numerous at that time: but you will be froth and scum like that carried down by a torrent (of water), and Allah will take the fear of you from the breasts (hearts) of your enemy and cast al-wahn into your hearts.” Someone asked, “O Messenger of Allah, what is al-wahn?” He replied, “Love of the world and dislike of death.”
:::— An authentic hadith recorded by Abu Dawud and Ahmad"
This appears to be the repetition of the same passage from two different translations.    Heavenlyblue (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repetition? 

message: In Usage:
:"Evidence of the strength of the belief that a non-Muslim power (the United States) is at least attempting to weaken, if not annihilate, Islam...."
In the context of a discussion of proof for and against a 'war against Islam', the use of the word "evidence" here is inappropriate and misleading.  I'll change it.    Heavenlyblue (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence... 

message: In Usage:
:"In the Middle East and Pakistan, religious discourse dominates societies, the airwaves, and thinking about the world. Radical mosques have proliferated throughout Egypt. Bookstores are dominated by works with religious themes … The demand for sharia, the belief that their governments are unfaithful to Islam and that Islam is the answer to all problems, and the certainty that the West has declared war on Islam; these are the themes that dominate public discussion. Islamists may not control parliaments or government palaces, but they have occupied the popular imagination."
It seems to me unlikely that this emphasis is original.  If not, then it must not be used here.  This is not an essay, but an encyclopedia article.  Does anyone have access to the original source?    Heavenlyblue (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italics 

message: This article badly needs a Controversy, or better yet a Counterarguments, section.  The tone of most of the quotations is one of persecuted innocence, and much of the focus (probably quite rightly) is on accusations of more recent Western imperialism.  What is almost entirely lacking, however, is the balancing viewpoint that much hostility to Islam in the West is simply slow, residual pushback against hundreds of years of aggressive, imperialistic expansion by Islam, including numerous attacks on Western nations.  On the issue of the claim of the attempted destruction of Islamic religion, it could be noted that there are many accounts of forced conversions to Islam - officially forbidden, according to many modern scholars, but widely practiced in the times of aggressive expansion.  Thirdly, the point can be made that people from cultures with very different customs and values sometimes are bewildered or even disgusted by elements of another person's culture.  Certainly, much is made in Islamic sources of the 'immorality' and 'corruption' of the Christian West - its 'shameless' women, etc.  Would exponents of the theory of a 'war against Islam' see these writings as propaganda in a 'war against Christianity'?  I very much doubt it.
To balance this article, and to frame these ideas in a proper historical and social context, a Counterarguments section is an absolute necessity.    Heavenlyblue (talk) 19:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The point of terrorist groups claiming that there is a "War against Islam" is to try and draw moderates to their side. Dredging up ancient history about wars between Muslims and Christians as evidence for proof that there is, indeed, a war with Islam is counterproductive and, in fact, aids their propaganda goals.173.67.20.63 (talk) 23:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counterarguments 

message: This article is more than biased, it is badly camouflaged propaganda for a religious ideology.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.157.46.166 (talk) 12:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious propaganda article 

message: On seeing the talk page, I can see that I am not the only one who thought that it would be rational to include counter-arguments in this article. It lacks any counterarguments and thus - I hope by accident rather than design - supports as fact the statements in the lead from such unsavoury characters as Osama bin Laden and Anjem Choudary that there is and always has been a one-sided war on Islam by the West. Although I am a history reader, I am not a history scholar, and thus can't add sources by different authors. However I do know that, as per human nature that people from all backgrounds can be greedy or cruel, Muslims did invade, colonise, enslave, rape, massacre and triumphally erase Christian culture, before, during and after Crusades and colonialism. tAD (talk) 00:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Have added a section -- Reactions -- to deal with Sophia's complaint. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

text: Dredging up ancient history and events from a millennium or so ago is pointless. It's original research regardless, to respond with claims made by Kohmenei with counterarguments you yourself invented.173.67.20.63 (talk) 23:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV tag 

message: The vandalizing edits are too fast for me to keep up with.
:  Bfpage |leave a message  23:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: *I've restored the pre-vandalism version and protected the page for 3 months. Thanks for catching this! And remember, you can report vandals at WP:AIV and request page protection at WP:RFPP. Best regards, Swarm X 23:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with vandalism 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on War against Islam. 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/20070816191154/http://english.aljazeera.net:80/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=22235 to http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=22235
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 05:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on War against Islam. 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/20080522050032/http://ap.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5h0arauyjLz9xhnBdnw6pEEOpKErwD8VH20J00 to http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h0arauyjLz9xhnBdnw6pEEOpKErwD8VH20J00
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 06:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article must reflect on the conspiracy theory character of its topic, it must do so in the introduction. There is a ton of good research on conspiracy theories, they emerge where societies see their environment and as a consequence their world change while feeling powerless about it and at least to some degree also not capable to explain and grasp what is happening. For example the article Conspiracy theories in the Arab world does a fine job in this respect in its introduction, and so should this article. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 07:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article must reflect on the conspiracy theory character of its topic 

message: I think I appropriately re-arranged and cleaned up the article enough today to remove the POV flag. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning up the article and removing the POV flag 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on War against Islam. 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/20130821165016/http://www.internal-displacement.org/8025708F004CE90B/%28httpCountrySummaries%29/441ED4F5458A7C1DC125733600369629?OpenDocument&count=10000 to http://www.internal-displacement.org/8025708F004CE90B/%28httpCountrySummaries%29/441ED4F5458A7C1DC125733600369629?OpenDocument&count=10000
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070816191154/http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=22235 to http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=22235
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=22235
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) 20:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In India,followers of Hinduism and other Indian religions and Zoroastrianism and also the tribal religions in India are crusading against of Islam for demolishing Temple and other sacre building in medieval period of India.Followers of Hinduism and other Dharmic religions and Zoroastrianism and also the tribal religions of India consider Islam as barbaric,false and demonic religion.
So this can be part of war against Islam.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.27.193 (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hindu are crusading against Islam