Talk:Jihadism

File:Clip from a video said to be anonymously released by the East Turkestan Islamic Party.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Clip from a video said to be anonymously released by the East Turkestan Islamic Party.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

request edit

This particular page is a heinous crime against the religion Islam as it has referred to articles written after 2006 whereis the age of the religion is hundreds of years. The author mentioned it as Jihadism which has nothing to do with Islam although many Non-Islamic person are referring to this particular page when they put a finger towards Jihad and Islam which is explained only at another page of this website (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad). Not to mention that that this article also provides the impression that Islam itself is a religion of terrorism which is another falsification. Please do have an unbiased view towards Islam and put this page under a major proofreading.

Thanks in Advance

Hi! I'm new here, so I'm not sure I'm the best person to help with your issues, but, here goes... Proofreading and checking on Wikipedia is an ongoing process: we typically use newer sources than the original Quran, of course, because to write about anything Islamic using just the words of the Prophet would be biased, but Wikipedia is all about being unbiased and your views are an important part of that.

So... Could you be more specific as to which bits of the article upset or offend you, or give the impression that the piece is wrong? If you could make a list of places where you think the specific info is wrong, or where it needs sourcing, or where there's biased language, it would be a lot easier for more experienced editors than me to take a look. I also really appreciate you coming onto this noticeboard as a COI rather than just editing the post, when you feel strongly about it.

If you could make a list of the things that are in there (sentences/sources) that you feel are wrong or biased, then hopefully the working group can pick it up. At Wikipedia, we try and be neutral, so I'm not sure we'll get to anywhere where you're going to be happy, because a neutral POV is never going to please people who have strong opinions one way or the other -- but hopefully we can get to the point where you feel it's more fair, and not something that people with anti-Islamic views can point a finger at you for. AdventurousMe (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Closing request edit rationale: No actual conflict of interest is apparent, so this is not the best template. More specific info on what edits are desired should be set forth. – S. Rich (talk) 21:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 05:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

---

Jihadism → Jihadist extremism – As per the basics of WP:AT that: "The title indicates what the article is about". The article on Jihad explains that Jihad, in its full range of meanings, describes an Islamic struggle which doesn't necessarily involve weapons and the like. Furthermore conceptions, presented in the jihad article, of the Distinction of "greater" and "lesser" jihad indicate greater jihad to be an internal struggle. Certainly a lot of focus is placed on lesser jihad especially during recent decades and yet it is also clear that this form of Jihad is very far from representative of the complete picture. WP:CRITERIA, Consistency applies in relation to articles such as Islamic extremism, Islamic extremism in the United States and Jihadist extremism in the United States. Other commonly used terms include "jihadist movement" (most commonly used), and "militant jihadism" but I think that "Jihadist extremism" most fully describes the topic. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. The proposed title would violate WP:NPOV, and it would not "indicate what the article is about", since it would imply that the article only covered the most extreme form of the ideology known (rightly or wrongly) as "Jihadism" in English. In fact, the article does and should cover the entire spectrum of Jihadist ideology, and the title should make this clear. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 20:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. A jihadist is a holy warrior, so extremism is implied. It's not like there are rival moderate and extreme factions. Claimsworth (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Claimsworth Jihadist is also an adjective indicative of the Islamic topic of Jihad. I fear that this context has got lost in modern descriptions of Jihadism. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Jihadism is a term used by reliable sources, both news media and academic sources. Gazkthul (talk) 23:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose "Jihadist extremism" is not a common phrase or subject. Jihadism is widely used by reliable sources. Often an "ism" is different from the concept without the "ism" so there should be no confusion. Jason from nyc (talk) 23:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Jihadism expressed as agressive

I have recently edited the lead to present:
"Jihadism ... is commonly used in reference to aggressive interpretations of armed jihad in association with extremist interpretations of Islamic fundamentalism.

It is based on current code: '''Jihadism''' (also '''jihadist extremism''', '''jihadist movement''', '''jihadi movement''' or '''militant jihadism''') is commonly used in reference to aggressive interpretations of '''armed [[jihad]]''' in association with [[Islamic extremism|extremist]] interpretations of [[Islamic fundamentalism]].{{Citation needed|date=November 2014}}{{Clarify|Please clarify. Who uses it so? What does the extension 'in Islamic fundamentalism' mean: does armed jihad exist outside Islamic fundamentalism? And what other name than 'Jihadsism' does it get then there?|date=November 2014}}

The article on Jihad states: In Arabic, the word jihād is a noun meaning "struggle" or "resisting". Jihadism, however, is widely presented as being aggressive in character. I think that the difference between jihadism and jihad needs to be fairly presented.

Does this edit dispense with the need for the clarification needed etc. templates. Gregkaye ✍♪ 13:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

"jihadist extremism", "militant jihadism", etc., I expect you can find these collocations in google, but they are clearly redundant and do not have the status of proper noun. Or what is "non-militant jihadism" supposed to be? Same goes for "armed jihad" (I am aware of Sufi notions of non-armed jihad, but this is clearly not the topic here, and not the primary meaning of the term). You can say "armed jihad" if you insist, but you shouldn't boldface it as if it was anything other than you adding a redundant adjective.

If you want to "fairly" work out a difference between "jihad" and "jihadism", you need to look at how the terms are used. Usage trumps etymology or literal meaning. "Jihad" is the more inclusive terms, covering all Islamic warfare going back to the 7th century. "Jihadism" otoh is very much a neologism and refers to warfare and terror attacks by Muslim non-state-actors (non-recognized states, I should say, as often call themselves "states" of course) characteristic of the time since the 2000s.

Look, the jihad article keeps getting vandalised by people trying to (I assume, disingeniously) suggest that the Sufi meaning is somehow prevalent or primary. This is not the case, of course, but because of the perpetual "edit-jihadism" going on over there, you cannot possibly use the current revision of the page to support any kind of argument.

It isn't clear how "extremism" is different exactly from "fundamentalism". I realize the two terms have different etymologies and literal meanings, but you are going to have a really hard time drawing a de facto line between "Islamic extremism" and "Islamic fundamentalism". Fundamentalism in any ideology means that you are willing to go to extremes in pushing the fundamentals without compromise. Jihadism is just the contemporary term for Muslims organising in armed rebellion, combining the former terminological difference between "terrorism" and "mujahideen" guerilla outfits. There used to be a time where, from a western perspective at least, you could draw some sort of line between mujahideen hiding in the hills, and terrorists blowing up targets in cities. This distinction has long gone, and the general concept of unleashing violence on any unbelievers or less-than-orthodox believers is now known as "jihadism", spanning hardcore tribal outfits in the NWFP to second generation urban wankers in London fantasizing about spilling the blood of the infidels. --dab (𒁳) 15:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be an assumption that jihad is extremist. It is not, it is a fundamental obligation of all Muslim's. About that there is no dispute. The question then is what is Jihad. The best analysis seems to be that there are at least four stages of Jihad, two of which involve violence. However none of this can be called extremism.Royalcourtier (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

First use and context of the term

We have claims that the term originates around 2000 in Indian/Pakistani media. This is possible. The earliest English usage I can find dates to about 2003. The claim that Kepel originated the term in French academia cannot be substantiated, he does use it in references to Jihadi outfits since the 1970s in his works, but I do not catch him using the word before 2007 or so. It's unlikely that his usage predates the journalistic one. The term is picked up by French and English language media at about the same time, about 2003. Which makes of course perfect sense historically, as jihadism as a term for the contemporary fashion of waging Jihad by asymmetrical warfare arises in the wake of the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan 2001. The term is entirely coined to cover this phenomenon.

If there is any evidence of the term predating 2003, it should by all means be added to the article. --dab (𒁳) 16:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I note that the article seems to have been exposed to malicious editing since I last looked at it. this is rather spectacular, a claim that a serious author proposed using the term "jihadism" to include "violent Buddhism". It turns out, of course, that the author did nothing of the kind and was just being misrepresented. Clearly, this page needs regular patrolling and close reference-checking. --dab (𒁳) 16:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Political article ???

This article and its contents are clearly political and have nothing to do with the "religious categories" of Islam. SpiritWrior888 (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Problems

I have added to this article, and a shorten version of it limited to who uses the term jihadism and what they mean would be appropriate, but as it stands this article seems more like a dumping ground for various jihads or self-proclaimed jihads by Muslim groups that could better be deleted or put in the Jihad article. (For example the history section) BoogaLouie (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Scope of the article? + Many problems

IMO the article as it stands now is deeply problematic. As I understand it, scholars use "jihadism" to refer to the ideology of the modern-day salafi/wahhabi insurgent and terrorist movements. As such, it is not clear why medieval conflicts like the Arab conquest of Persia, or a 16th century war in Tibet, or anti-colonial movements like Sudanese Mahdism should all be included under that header: Qutbism and Salafism hadn't yet been invented at the time. Are mainstream scholars seriously saying all these events are part of a single dynamic known as "jihadism"? As such, the article really lacks a sense of direction and scope.

Currently, this approach give the article the feel more of a polemical piece than an encyclopedic or scholarly one. As an aside, an article that places Hezbollah, Al Qaeda and the Algerian resistance to French rule under the same banner is quite obviously problematic. On the other hand, the Saudi Ikhwan, which is the actual source of the modern jihadist movement, doesn't even get any mention. (here's one piece by Karen Armstrong that can be used as good reference material for that story: , and another one from Alastair Crooke )

I understand this article is going to be particularly difficult, as the concept of "jihadism" is in the first place a construct invented by Western scholars, i.e. no one actually goes out and say "I believe in jihadism". Writing on the object of a construct is from the start a perilous exercise. For that reason, it is important to establish a clear definition of what we're talking about, then limit the scope of the article to what falls clearly under that definition.

It is also important to explore the difference between Jihadism and Jihad in mainstream Islam, and discuss the specific details of the ideology itself.

Other specific problems in this article include:
- Bizarre out of place sentences (e.g. in the introduction: Overlooking much of the empty labeling and hearsay throughout this article, a reader might confidently assume that there is no evidence that every Muslim worldwide, today numbering in the billions, is a devout and continual practitioner of ijtihad.?);
- Questionable statements presented as fact: The Hindu Kush refers to a region in Northwest India and translates as the slaughter of the Hindus (see Hindu Kush);
- The Fisabilillah armbands bit: is that such a central fact that it deserves its own sub-section? It could be used as a supporting anecdote when discussing the details of the ideology and how it relates to Islam;
- Citing precursors like the Khawarij (good) and the Assassins (highly debatable - the Ismaili sect is a whole different animal) makes sense, but IMO a "Precursors movements" section would be better placed as an aside towards the end of the article rather than straight up in the "History" section, which is implying a kind of straight line/a direct legacy, contributing to the article's polemical feel (by the way, no jihadists today see themselves as the heir of the Khawarij - the Khawarij are reviled by all and different jihadist groups in fact constantly accuse one another of being Khawarij, e.g. the Syrian Jaysh al-Islam against ISIS);
- General lack of a coherent structure. 180.183.75.90 (talk) 05:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Proposed split

Another editor has proposed splitting the section "offensive jihad" into a separate article. Since that section originated from a merge discussion from that target, I think it should be discussed first. It also seems a bit of a WP:POVFORK to me. Thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 02:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support split or merge into Jihad The term "jihadism" is a negative term which was coined in the 2000s and mostly used to cover Islamic insurgency and Islamic terrorism since that time which has nothing to do with offensive jihad because it is part of Islam since it's beginning. Anybody linking the term "jihadism" with the word Offensive Jihad clearly has a political agenda. Also Defensive jihad has it's own article.70.50.214.180 (talk) 04:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
• Don't split, delete or merge into Jihad after correcting policy violations. Although we might have a separate article on this topic in principle, the current content of this section doesn't have enough well-sourced material even for a stub. The definition at the top is unsourced (ref 18 is just for the terms dar al-Islam and dar al-harb). The middle of the section is classic WP:SYNTH: taking a RS connecting the terms "offensive jihad" and fard kifaya, then taking a primary source, which could be classified under jihadism and uses the term fard kifaya, and then synthesizing all that into a discussion of offensive jihad in the context of jihadism. The last paragraph misrepresents the cited source. The source says that "jihad that is a collective duty" is "simplified in Western texts as an offensive jihad". It doesn't say that the two are "synonymous in classical Islamic law and tradition". If we want to do something with this material after fixing these violations, we should merge it into Jihad, whose discussion of the offensive/defensive jihad distinction should be improved. Eperoton (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I've merged the section into Jihad. Per my comment above, most of it was WP:SYNTH, except the last part, in which I corrected the source misrepresentation. Eperoton (talk) 03:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Merger Discussion

The articles Jihadism and Salafi jihadism have largely overlapping scope. Salafi jihadism is much more developed and better sourced, but it is unnecessarily limited to sources which use the term "Salafi jihadism", which is commonly called simply "Jihadi/Jihadist/Jihadism", including in academic sources (e.g., The Oxford Handbook of Islam and Politics [1], Oxford Bibliographies [2], David Commins [3]). In contrast, this article contains a lot of WP:OR with anachronistic references to various phenomena of the past, not based on any references to "jihadism" in the citations. If this OR is trimmed, the rest will be basically an underdeveloped WP:CFORK of Salafi jihadism. Whatever "jihadism" there is which is not "Salafi" can be pointed out in the combined article. Eperoton (talk) 22:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• strong oppose. A recent phenomenon of "Shia Jihadism" in Syria would make a merger ... well, ridiculous. All the evidence indicates Salafi jihadists strongly oppose Shia Islam and hitherto Sunni jihadists pretty much the term "jihadist" to themselves. No longer. While the term "Shia Jihadist" is much less commonly used than "Salafi jihadist", it is used.

`The Islamic Republic itself has orchestrated a massive transnational flow of Islamist extremists into the Syrian fray, forces that have engaged in violence on a staggering scale. This Shia jihad is largely left out of the dominant narrative. Shia foreign fighters in Syria are “far more numerous” than foreign ISIS recruits, yet have “received noticeably less attention,” note Ari Heistein and James West.` Book Reviews Theaters of Coercion (see also: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-30411519 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfG4dJboZhM http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/196072 ) --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• weak oppose. After doing some research and finding little on jihadism that is not actually salafist-jihadi, I propose keep as a short article since there are some jihadis that do not come from salafist tradition. Merge some of it with jihad article, and other parts maybe into the salafist-jihadi article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@Eperoton: IOW, most but not all of what Eperoton is suggesting. (One problem is Shia jihadism doesn't really make sense if you think of jihadis as setting up their own emir, doing their own fatwa declaring jihad and ignoring the "shiekhist ulama". If a Shi'i doesn't have a Marj they obey on religious matters they aren't much of a Shi'i.) --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:57, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Further thoughts on why I oppose: see end comments by MezzoMezzo at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Salafi_jihadism#Requested_move_11_December_2014 --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose for the same reasons I stated back in 2014. If two topics aren't the same, then they shouldn't be in the same article. I did review the entire discussion and that doesn't change the fundamental principle upon which I base my opposition. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

proposal to end discussion

... and delete tag. Does anyone have an objection? Will give this until January 2017. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:33, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@BoogaLouie: Hmm, I wonder if you have misread the proposed direction of the merge. Before I write more, could you either confirm that it wasn't the case or reread my original proposal and see if you still disagree? This article has been much improved by your recent additions, but it still seems like a content fork with Salafi jihadism, where some sub-topics are now better covered here, while others are still better covered there. Eperoton (talk) 01:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@BoogaLouie: Ok, I've read MezzoMezzo's comment, whom I'm also pinging for additional insight. I'm in agreement as far as the merge into Salafism was concerned. There we have a subsection called "Salafi jihadists", giving us a standard topic/subtopic relationship, and both those articles are reasonably well developed. The relationship of this article to Salafi jihadism is more difficult. Although Salafi jihadism is conceptually a sub-category of jihadism, what we have here in practice are two terms which -- with the exception of some use for Shia militants, which we have determined to be fairly marginal, thanks to your research -- largely refer to the same phenomenon. In English, the term "Salafi jihadism" and related variants are used by some scholars and "national security" commentators. The majority of sources use the term "jihadism", which means that we can't properly use them in Salafi jihadism without synth. This overlapping use also means that for almost every subsection in one article, we could have a subsection with the same title in the other, as is emblematic of content forks. Finally, this article remains underdeveloped compared to the other. Your proposal of trimming down this article would also address some of these concerns. I imagine we would merge parts of this article into Salafi jihadism and what's left would be mostly an article about the term itself. Still, I don't see why it would be preferable to merging in the other direction, and I would like to better understand your objections. Eperoton (talk) 03:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Result

Ok, thanks for your input. Two responses opposing merge, none is support. Closing discussion. Eperoton (talk) 04:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jihadism. 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/20150311032304/http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/jihad-is-cool-jihadist-magazines-recruit-young-terrorists to http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/jihad-is-cool-jihadist-magazines-recruit-young-terrorists

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

H Momin Ali ujjan (talk) 08:57, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Various important statistics and articles

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 Palestinian Muslims 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) 15:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

At least one of these has nothing to do with Jihadists, so what relevance has it to this article?Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, quite a lot of it does directly concerns jihadism, and the rest concerns the environment that creates them. David A (talk) 17:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Then maybe you should filter out those, and then make a suggested edit, rather then expect us to wade through a wall of link most of which look irrelevant.Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, I have summarised the most relevant information for most of them, and the degree of support for jihadism in different countries, and similar statistics, definitely seem relevant. David A (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

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? Also what relevance or value could be gained by pointing out that Jihadist have lots of websites, how does that information improve the article, as to the death penalty for certain crimes, that has nothing to do with Jihadism (for example China has the death penalty for Tax fraud as well as prostitution, silly laws are not the preserve of jihadism)? You need to make the case for inclusion (as well as what you want to include).Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the other discussion, ideally Wikipedia editors should mainly be concerned about helping each other to spread information about the nature of reality, not to relentlessly argue against it as soon as it runs contrary to a personal agenda or belief system.

The Bill Gates article is just one of many, and should not serve as a convenient distraction, but given that jihadism is the by far most prevalent form of terrorism in the world today, once they start to efficiently use bioterrorism weapons, millions will likely die.

Death penalties for Atheism, Homosexuality, and Apostacy follow fundamentalist interpretations of Sharia law, mandated by the Quran and the Hadiths.

More importantly, I have a very hard time understanding how you can argue that actual statistics for the support of terrorist activity and actual active involvement in such organisations, is irrelevant in this context.

Anyway, I am extremely busy in general, and do not have the time to argue endlessly about this issue. David A (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

As I said in the other thread, this is why it would be best to discus one issue at a time...no one has the time to try and wade through a wall of links to find a nugget of gold. Again (going back to Gates, a nice illustration (by the way) of why small nuggets are better then lorry loads, we do not get distracted by one issue, are you aware that so far there have been no bio weapon attacks launched by MUSLIM terrorists?)). I agree, it is best now if we drop this. But I would hope you now come back with smaller and more concrete proposals.Slatersteven (talk) 07:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, it isn't like I just dumped the links without comment. I summarised the most important information for each of them, in order to make it quite easy to select whatever might be interesting.

As for the frequency of terrorism, I have read that there have been over 31000 Jihadist attacks in the world since September 11 2001, and that ISIS members been trying to develop bioweapons, so it seems to be only a matter of time, and I find the prospect terrifying. David A (talk) 07:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

What you did not do is explain why it was relevant. This we will have to look at each source, determine if it is relevant, whether the source is RS, and what weight to give it. With one or two suggested edits this is fine, but not only is there a wall of "facts" to verify you also expect us to write the text to include. As to bio weapons, who were the last set of terrorists to use them?Slatersteven (talk) 08:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Thus looking at the one "factoid" We have to access whether the sources is RS (CNN, check), whether it in fact supports the text (Check), whether it is relevant to the article (fail, this article is not about terrorism). And we have to do this (and more if it gets past stage three) on each and every link you provided. And you are making an issue about this one (you think it should be included, based upon some synthases "most terrorists are Muslim so they are more likely to use bio weapons", the source does not support that statement), and again we will have to go through this for each of your links.Slatersteven (talk) 08:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

It seems self-evident that the statistics of support for and involvement in terrorism activity are highly relevant for the issue. I do not expect you to include nearly everything, just to not automatically dismiss it all wholesale.

As for bioterrorism, it is still an irrelevant side-topic distracting from the rest, but by your logic we should not buy a car insurance based on the fact that we have not had any accidents yet. Analysis of probable future development is crucial. Regardless, I would much prefer that we leave the topic, and focus on the more relevant and tangible actual statistics. David A (talk) 08:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

However, you do have a point in that I should have sifted more before posting. David A (talk) 08:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Please read our rules about OR and specifically synthases [[[4]] [[5]], so without knowing what you want the article to say I cannot view the inclusion of the Bill Gates article as anything other then a kind of Synthesis (fact A is true, fact B is true so we should write conclusion C).Slatersteven (talk) 08:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

As I mentioned, I do not consider the Bill Gates article as nearly as relevant as the various statistics regarding the support for, and involvement in, terrorism in different countries. I would appreciate if we could switch to that topic instead. Thank you. David A (talk) 08:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Internet presence

Why is it relevant how many web pages jihadists have?Slatersteven (talk) 12:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

It showcases the sheer enormity of their propaganda network. David A (talk) 13:27, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

No it does not, it shows they have a lot of web pages. To demonstrate the "enormity of their propaganda network" you have to have sources which discus that (and your text must reflect what the source says, and what you want to say), not just a random number about websites. Besides this is about ISIL, not jihadism.Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I provided links to other articles that go into the efficiency of their propaganda, including this one, and the Islamic State is one of the world's two most dangerous jihadist organisations. David A (talk) 10:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Efficiency and enormity are not the same. This is why we need to know what you want to write, and what sources you want to use to write it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I am personally uncertain which parts that are academically appropriate to insert into the articles. I am good at finding a wide variety of sources for information. I am not skilled at sifting information (constant unfiltered information overload is one of the symtoms of my autism), or rewriting complicated Wikipedia articles in an appropriate manner, at least not with the extremely limited free time that I have available, due to managing one of the world's most popular entertainment wikis. David A (talk) 12:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I think, perhaps, (and unless someone else wishes to help) this has more or less run it's course. I am sorry the user has difficulty writing material but I am unable to second guess what they want to try and include. Perhaps someone with more patience and understanding can offer to help, maybe with mentoring?Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, the statistics regarding the prevalence of Jihadism, and its support in different countries, seem like the most relevant to add to the article. David A (talk) 15:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

There are a lot of sources listed here which I don't have time to go through right now. At a glance, though, it looks like many of them do not explicitly discuss the topic of this article, which is jihadism. As the sources cited in our article explain, this term does not have a universally accepted definition, but people do use it with certain meanings, which are not equivalent to Islamism, terrorism, jihad, or other terms. At a minimum, the sources used in this article should make explicit that they are discussing jihadism. We can't make that inference ourselves, as it would violate WP:SYNTH. Eperoton (talk) 16:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, as long as the articles cover statistics about the prevalence of Islamic terrorism activity, I think that it should be fine to include. Help to incorporate it into the article would be very appreciated. David A (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Jihadism and terrorism are only partially overlapping terms, and the extent of overlap depends on how particular authors use those terms. We have plenty of articles about terrorism. If the source explicitly refers to terrorism but not jihadism, it's more appropriate for those articles, where there's no risk of WP:SYN. Eperoton (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. Can you give me suggestions for the most appropriate articles to insert the statistics into? David A (talk) 10:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

For prevalence of terrorism, I would start with Islamic terrorism and drill down to its spin-off articles to find the appropriate level of detail. Eperoton (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you. David A (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

My revert

I have just reverted this. I don't really have much interest in the topic but the contributor has been engaging in WP:OR elsewhere today, seemingly with a desire to right great wrongs. I think such large changes will probably require discussion by people who are interested and actually have a decent background knowledge of this topic and its sources. - Sitush (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Jihadism

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 Jihadism'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 "oxfordislamicstudies.com":

• From Islam and modernity: Esposito, John L. "Contemporary Islam". In John L. Esposito (ed.). The Oxford History of Islam. Oxford Islamic Studies Online. Retrieved 12 November 2014.
• From Shahid: "Martyrdom". In The Islamic World: Past and Present. Ed. John L. Esposito. Oxford Islamic Studies Online. 5 December 2012.

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⚡ 11:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of sourced sections and related categories

@Shadowwarrior8: These are the sections with sourced content and reliable references that you had deliberately deleted from the article without consensus (compare diffs, notice all the content that was deleted in the second one: [6] and [7]):

1. Against Shīʿa Muslims

Main article: Anti-Shi'ism

Further information: Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict and Persecution of Shias by the Islamic State

The Syrian Civil War became a focus for Sunnī militants and fighters waging jihad against Shīʿa Muslims. The al-Nusra Front is the largest Sunnī jihadist group in Syria. In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood has called for a jihad against the Syrian government and its Shīʿīte allies. Saudi Arabia backs the jihad against Shīʿa Muslims in Syria using proxies. Sunnī jihadist foreign fighters converged on Syria from Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen, Kuwait, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Morocco, as well as from other Arab states, Chechnya, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Western countries.

2. Against atheists

Main article: Discrimination against atheists

Further information: Persecution of atheists in the Middle East

During the Soviet-Afghan war in the 1980s, many Muslims received calls for a jihad against atheists. Mujahideen were recruited from various countries, including Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. The conflict gradually turned from one against occupation to one seen as a jihad.

3. The Category:Religious terrorism was also removed without justification, despite the fact that this article is concerned with jihadism, which all the cited references define as a form of Islamic terrorism, therefore of religious terrorism.

You reverted my revert by claiming that you had simply deleted some original research ([8]), but it's not true (compare diffs, notice all the content that was deleted in the second one: [9] and [10]). These two sections that I rewrote above are both well-sourced and the Category:Religious terrorism is definitely appropriate for this article. As everyone can see, none of those sections were tagged as original research, and there was no reason to delete any of this content.

Do you have any explanation for your disruptive editing? I'm not against adding new content, the improvements that you made were fine, but there's no reason to delete sourced content with references simply because you don't like it or disregard those sections as unimportant, because that behavior qualifies as disruptive editing. Please restore the sourced sections that you had previously deleted without justification, including the Category:Religious terrorism, to which jihadism belongs. GenoV84 (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@GenoV84: Have you actually taken the time to read the sources? Firstly, I am sure you're aware that this article has a long-standing Original Research template. So, it requires clean-up.

Secondly, note that I didnt remove any reference. All the references are still intact. Infact I improved some references. So thats a fact. The content I removed was replaced due to it having no basis from these same sources. See WP:OR

So, here are the rest of the facts:

1. Against Shīʿa Muslims

• 1st sentence: "The Syrian Civil War became a focus for Sunnī militants and fighters waging jihad against Shīʿa Muslims. The al-Nusra Front is the largest Sunnī jihadist group in Syria"

Absolutely zero basis in the source. This source () doesnt say any such thing. There's not even a mention of Shia Muslims there. Pure Original Research. It had nothing to do with Sunni-Shia fighting. Which is why I moved the source to Against Ba'athism -> Syria sub-section and wrote "Al-Nusra Front was one of the largest Jihadist factions in the Syrian Civil War, and carried out large-scale attacks against the Ba'athist military and government officers during its insurgency between 2012 and 2016" as clearly supported by the source.

• 2nd sentence: "Saudi Arabia backs the jihad against Shīʿa Muslims in Syria using proxies"

This too is is WP:OR. The source doesnt say that Saudi Arabia backs anti-Shia Jihad in Syria. One relevant quote is that

But the Saudis are also bent on ousting Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, and his patron, Iran, which they see as a mortal enemy

So it neatly fits with the text I wrote: "Saudi Arabia also supported various Jihadist factions against the Assad regime, viewing the fight as part of its wider proxy conflict with Iran"

• 3rd sentence: Didnt change it

So on the whole, the sub-section has NOTHING to do with any Anti-Shia sectarianism. It deals with political violence between various Regime and pro-Iran militants vs Sunni Jihadists. Hence, the sub-section title was changed appropriately to: Against Shīʿa Islamists

2. Against atheists

Firstly, Afghan Jihad was not against atheists. It was against Soviet communist invaders. See Soviet–Afghan War. USA backed the Afghan Mujahidin groups against USSR as part of the Cold War. Now coming to the sources:

• 1st sentence: During the Soviet-Afghan war in the 1980s, many Muslims received calls for a jihad against atheists Mujahideen were recruited from various countries, including Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia.

What the source actually says:

Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, the Gulf shiekdoms, and others collaborated with the United States in facilitating – or at least theyturned a blind eye to – the recruitment and flow of young Muslims to wage jihad against the Russian occupiers. Their goals were to please their superpower patron, divert the threat of potential jihadis and mil�itants away from their own thrones, and capitalize on their support for jihad against Communist invaders to gain public legitimacy at home...Young Muslims were bombarded with calls to join in jihad against the atheist occupiers

How can this be reduced to a fight against atheists when this is clearly a political resistance to communist invasion of Afghanistan? And on top of that, you have links like "discrimination against atheists". Pure Original Research.

Hence I removed it and wrote "During the Soviet-Afghan war in the 1980s, Muslims across the World were encouraged by the Gulf States, Egypt, Pakistan, Morocco, Jordan and various pro-Western Arab nations for a jihad to defeat the communist invaders in Afghanistan. The United States and allies supported Islamist revolutionaries to the defeat the threat posed by "godless communism", supplying the Afghan Mujahidin with money, equipment and training."

Note: that I made a slight mistake in referencing the pages in that edit. I wrote 30-31 instead of 68-73. That was my mistake.

Page number 73 of the source () also states:

The Carter and Reagan administrations recognized the new possibilities for cooperation with Islamist activists and hoped to harness their religious and ideological fervor against communist expansionism. Because they were obsessed with the struggle against godless communism, American leaders were naturally inclined to flirt with and align their country with the soldiers of God in the Muslim world.

So my wording is in line with the source. The previous text was WP:OR

• 2nd sentence: "Mujahideen were recruited from various countries, including Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia.

Didnt change it

• 3rd sentence: "The conflict gradually turned from one against occupation to one seen as a jihad'".

I simply improved that sentence with more details and an additional reference: "Following the overthrowal of the communist regime and dissolution of U.S.S.R, many foreign Jihadists that coalesced under the transnational networks of Al-Qaeda organisation began viewing their struggle as part of a "Global Jihad", eventually pitting them towards a collision course with the United States in the 1990s."

It was based on this text from the source:

However, by the end of the 1990s, a dramatic change had occurred within the jihadi movement: from localism to globalism. The underlying context behind this momentous change included: (1) the withdrawal of Russian troops from Afghanistan and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union; (2) the 1991 Gulf war and the permanent stationing of American forces in Saudi Arabia; and (3) the defeat of religious ationalists on their home turf by the end of the 1990s. A paradigmatic shift among a tiny segment of jihadis gave birth to a new breed of transnationalist jihadis led by Al Qaeda.

So conclusion: The sources refer only to a fight against communism and this sub-section must be named as such. If you want a seperate sub-section for Jihadist fight against atheism, you need to bring in additional sources to cite.

3. As for the category removal, that may be discussed after the first two Content disputes are Resolved.

In the meantime, I am going to restore the rest of my edits.

~~ shadowwarrior8 (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@Shadowwarrior8: Feel free to do it. As I said, I'm not against adding new content, and I didn't write those sections anyway. They were in the article years before I ever came across it, but thanks for explaining what the changes were about. I didn't notice the change of page numbers to that reference but it's fine. Overall, I agree with the improvements that you were referring to regarding those sections mentioned above, but I still find the removal of Category:Religious terrorism to be unreasonable and unnecessary, since "jihadism" is classified and defined by the main references cited in the article as a form of Islamic extremism and terrorism, therefore of religious terrorism. Which means that this category is supposed to be here, obviously. GenoV84 (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

@GenoV84: Thank you for being open to accommodate as per WP:MIDDLEGROUND.

Regarding the removal of "Religious Terrorism" from the category, before I proceed to explain, its very important to note that the charge of "terrorism" is a lofty charge, with real-world consequences. One must not use that term lightly or hastily. So, coming to the content:

Firstly, the sources in the lede doesnt equate Jihadism with terrorism.

• So a sentence in the lede states regarding the usage of term "Jihadism" in massmedia and secular academia: "Since then, it has been applied to various insurgent Islamic extremist, militant Islamist, and terrorist individuals and organizations whose ideologies are based on the Islamic notion of jihad'."

Technically correct Various terrorist groups have been "labelled" Jihadist in Western media and academia. But they do not "define" Jihadism as terrorism, or equate Jihadism with terrorism

• Sources:

i) This source () doesnt discussing specifically about ISIS in the cited pages but even then it doesnt use the word "terrorism", even though ISIS is ofcourse a death-cult. Interestingly the source says in footnote 8 in page 506 regarding the danger of hasty categorisations:

This type of hostile othering and categorizing is similar to that used in the occasionally racist labelling of perceived enemies as terrorists, jihadists, extremists, Mohammedans, Islamists, hajjis, camel jockeys, and so on.

ii) This source () is freely accessible online, you can check. It is talking about the Islamic concept of Jihad not the ideology of Jihadism. And even then, the word "terrorism" is no where used.

iii) This source () also doesnt mention the term "Jihadism" and the one place it mentions "terrorism", it is specifically attributed to ISIS:

The Prophet’s instructions to his followers to obey their rulers have been turned on their head by Dae’sh’s call for “true” believers to disobey their Muslim leaders and launch military jihads. They do not treat jihad as a religious or spiritual concept in the sense that the Prophet did, but as a device with which they can call for and justify the killing of unbelievers and even fellow Muslims, even though they do not class those Muslims living beyond Dae‘sh occupied countries as true believers anyway. These Islamic concepts have thus been dangerously re-interpreted by modern extremist groups. They do not use hijra as a means to secure the survival of new Islamic communities, as the Prophet did, but in violent attempts to conquer non-Islamic territory or establish a new Islamic state. As with hijra, jihad is also being used to encourage terrorism. This bears no relationship to the Prophet’s original intention or understanding of the term. In his era, the terms hijra and jihad were simply related to religious obligations, but Dae‘sh use both to encourage and justify murder and war.

iv) This source () also neither mention the term "Jihadism" or "terrorism" in the cited pages.

v) These sources () also do not equate Jihadism with terrorism or define Jihadism as part of terrorism.

Finally, moving beyond the sources. What do you mean by terrorism??

Generally, there are 2 exisiting widespread defintions.

• Use of violence against the state and state-actors to achieve political or religious aims

or

• Use of violence specifically directed against civilians, women, children, etc to achieve political or religious aims

In the academia, currently the latter one is dominant. But various governments across the world employ the first definition to designate groups or individuals as "terrorist".

Now depending on which side of the aisle you are, your categorisation of Jihadism will be influenced by that view.

"Jihadism" is obviously a movement with explicit military aims. It aims to overthrow states and state-affiliated entities through violence. Many other revolutionary ideologies use the same strategy as well.

I dont view that itself as "terrorism", since I go with the second, more Neutral definition.

While groups like ISIS obviously use violence specifically against "civilians, women, children, etc" many Jihadist organisations do not have this policy. So it would be a fatal error to not see that distinction. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 06:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@Shadowwarrior8: Terrorism comprises both of the definitions that you quoted; to me, it means both of them. Moreover, there is no universally accepted definition of the term "terrorism" among scholars and academics of political science:

The discipline of terrorism research is relatively young and has likewise no generally accepted academic definition for terrorism. The word terror comes from the Latin word terrere, which means to frighten or scare. The concept of terrorism goes back to the 19th century. Terrorism as a political-military strategy has existed for about 40 years. The recent combination with the global mass media has allowed terrorism to reach a global dimension. In this paper, terrorism is defined as political violence in an asymmetrical conflict that is designed to induce terror and psychic fear (sometimes indiscriminate) through the violent victimization and destruction of noncombatant targets (sometimes iconic symbols). Such acts are meant to send a message from an illicit clandestine organization. The purpose of terrorism is to exploit the media in order to achieve maximum attainable publicity as an amplifying force multiplier in order to influence the targeted audience(s), in order to reach short- and midterm political goals and/or desired long-term end states.

As you can see, the main references cited in the article refer to "jihadism" otherwise using the terms "jihadist terrorism" and "Islamist terrorism". Several other reliable sources can be found on the Internet which state the same thing and use the same terminology referring to jihadism and Islamic terrorism, which are both forms of extremist militancy, political violence, and religious terrorism based on the Islamic ideology.

Terrorism, as a highly complex phenomenon, stands at the forefront of national and international agendas. Although terrorism has a variety of different forms in terms of its association with various secular and religious groups, Jihadi Terrorism (Jihadism) is considered as one of its most dangerous forms threatening the world. Jihadi terrorism is a consequence of integrating Islamic ideology with the idea of jihad in a sense that extreme interpretation of Islamic texts contributes to the rise of violent jihad. As long as Islamic texts are entirely open to a variety of interpretations, jihadi terrorists (jihadists) take full advantage of this flexibility to justify their act of violence against combatants and non-combatants. As such, the act of violence by jihadists is mostly justified under the banner of defending Islam, preserving the rule of Allah, and creating a worldwide Islamic fundamentalist state, the Caliphate.

GenoV84 (talk) 12:21, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Well the problem is, not all Jihadist groups use this strategy you described. (violent victimization and destruction of noncombatant targets (sometimes iconic symbols)). All Jihadist groups agree on waging a armed insurgencies against governments they oppose, because that's what Jihadism is about. But they differ a lot on the tactics they seek to employ.

Some of the sources you quoted here already been discussed above, and the rest of these sources are talking mainly about IS, which ofcourse employs terrorist tactics indiscriminately.

The category of "religious terrorism" belongs to specific groups and orgs that involve itself in acts of terror, not an ideology unless.. propogation of terrorism is fundamental to that ideology

If you are unaware, Jihad in traditional Islamic law explicitly prohibits the killing of women, children, innocent non-combatants and various other categories during warfare. Islamic legal scholars and jurists have written law manuals on rules of warfare over the past millenium. See Islamic military jurisprudence and Rules of warfare. So Jihad is not terrorism, infact it is against terrorism (in the traditional Islamic sense)

Most Jihadist groups generally stick by these traditional principles. It is a minority of Jihadist groups that engage in these tactics, because they refuse to abide by the Islamic scholarship (Ulemah); instead taking the law into its own hands. So you cant generalise Jihadist groups, especially since terrorism is opposed by the mainstream interpretation of Jihadism.

The ideology of Nazism isnt included in the category of "Far-right terrorism", and its a known ideology that engage in terror tactics and infact terrorism is fundamental to Nazi ideology. This is an example of SYSTEMIC BIAS within wikipedia.

Also see MOS:TERRORIST. You cant throw around this label easily. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 12:20, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

We are talking about jihadist and Islamic terrorism based on Islamic texts and their interpretations here, not Neo-Nazi terrorism; they are two different extremist ideologies and politically-motivated terrorist networks, the former is religious and the latter secular. I already know the difference between jihadist and Islamic terrorism and the traditional understanding of jihad among Islamic scholars; the difference is thoroughly discussed in the main article. The cited academic references in this article state exactly the opposite of what you claim, considering that jihadist terrorist militants and organizations attack non-combatant civilians (mostly other Muslims, which are the main victims of jihadist and Islamic terrorism worldwide) and these terrorist groups fight against each other as well, not only against the governments as you claimed. I don't care about the alleged bias within Wikipedia, and if you think that Wikipedia is biased, why are you here in the first place? Your reasoning doesn't make any sense to me, and the reliable references cited in the article and the new ones that I provided here explicitly refer to "jihadism" as a form of Islamic extremism and religious terrorism, to the point where terms "Islamic terrorism", "Islamist extremism", "jihadism", "jihadist terrorism", and "jihadist violence" are often used interchangeably. Therefore, the Category:Religious terrorism is closely related to this article and highly relevant for it. It definitely needs to stay here and there's no good reason to remove it because you dislike it. Sorry, but that's not the way Wikipedia works. GenoV84 (talk) 12:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

While jihadism is certainly extremism, I would encourage caution in implying that it is always necessarily terrorism. Whether or not groups and their actions are characterized as terrorist will always be case-by-case. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't know of any jihadist group or organization that doesn't engage in political violence and/or terrorist activities... they are not spending their time together picking daisies in the countryside, that's for sure. Several of the terrorist plots and attacks (including the ones that failed in the U.S.) that occured during the first half of the 21st century have been planned and perpetrated by Islamic terrorist groups and organizations which more or less believe that jihad is a fundamental tenet of their ideological worldview. Some of these Islamic terrorist groups label themselves by explicitly using the terms "jihad" or "jihadist", others do not, but they all agree that their militant struggle against other Muslims, non-state actors, non-combatant civilians, armies and governments is based on jihad. GenoV84 (talk) 13:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, there's a really obvious example for this: the Taliban. When they fought the Soviets, they may have been 'terrorists' to the Russians, but the West, while supporting them, treated them as 'freedom fighters'. Then they became the 'terrorists' again when they were insurgents, but now they are back in government, and they are not, because governments don't call other governments that, as that's no diplomacy and in any case they all have their secrets, grey sites, etc. The resounding point being that 'terrorist' is always an incredibly subjective, context-specific label, hence WP:TERRORIST. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

That's true. You're right about the fact that the U.S. and Western media changed completely their way of labeling the Taliban from allies to enemies, before and after the Soviet–Afghan War (1979–1989), respectively. My point of contention regarding the topic of this article is that several of the cited references here define "jihadism" as "jihadist terrorism", not me, and WP policies require editors to stick to the sources. For the same reason, Islamic extremist and militant organizations such as al-Qaeda, al-Nusra Front, Boko Haram, ISIS, the Taliban themselves, and many others are defined and classified as "terrorist" on their respective articles on Wikipedia. Why? Because Wikipedia si allegedly biased, as shadowarrior claims? NO, because the reliable references written by academics and scholars who are cited throughout those WP articles define them as "terrorist". GenoV84 (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Sources using "jihadist terrorism" as a set phrase are not obviously equating jihadism with terrorism; they may simply be using the compound term to mean terrorism as performed by jihadists. That is certainly the usage in the first source. The third source isn't focused on terror. The fifth is about jihad. The last defines the term in the way you have mentioned, but that is one think tank. That's me just sampling some of the sources I could access. Based on the above, I don't see any particularly consistent usage in the sources. Maybe several sources use the term in that way, but it's certainly not all or even clearly most of them, and if WP:NPOV requires us to be neutral with respect to all reliable sources, we can't just go along with the definition of what several sources, and especially not just US think tanks, suggest. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, focus on the content, not the editor. Our friend here may be a little left-field on some subjects, and we've quibbled on a few things, but actually, a little diversity among our editors is good. Wikipedia is of course known for having several forms of WP:BIAS; this is only to be expected. It is obviously Western-academia and anglophone-centric. It is what it is. I don't have any particular point to make on the subject here, but it worth keeping an open mind to the idea that the presentation of certain subjects may have at this point have been warped by several decades of both unconscious bias, and, quite often on thorny Islam topics, the intentional framing of subjects from certain POVs. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Dear @Iskandar323:, I have no reason to attack anyone, and I didn't do so to neither of you two. I've focused on content and references since the very beginning of this discussion, not on the parties involved. I agreed with shadowarrior about the improvements and addition of new content to the article. I tried to explain my perplexities to you and shadowarrior regarding the removal of the Category:Religious terrorism, I heard the counter-arguments, and I find some of them to be unconvincing.

If I understood correctly, according to your way of reasoning, we are somehow supposed to right what you seemingly perceive as "great wrongs", while simultaneously approving the removal of a category which is closely related to the subject of this article. I'm sorry but I can't agree upon this, and WP policies are against this pattern of editing. If we had to follow the same line, we should delete the terms "terrorism" and "terrorist" from every WP article on extremist and militant organizations which plot and carry out terrorist attacks in the world, regardless of their respective ideologies or movements (far-left terrorism, far-right terrorism, Christian terrorism, Islamic terrorism, Jewish terrorism, etc.). To me, it sounds like an attempt to censorship on this encyclopedia, which everyone is free to edit and improve in accordance with the WP policies and guidelines.

I would also like to point out that the sources which cite articles from think tanks are mostly European or U.S.-based because most of them are focused on international relations and foreign policy, therefore they also discuss of issues related to international terrorism and counter-terrorism. However, these references are also useful and can be used on Wikipedia, since these articles are written by military and academic researchers of several fields (security studies, political science, international relations, etc.). GenoV84 (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, the bias isnt "alleged". It is acknowledged. "the encyclopedia fails in this goal (of NPOV) because of systemic bias created by the editing community's narrow social and cultural demographic" WP:BIAS

You over-represent studies related to ISIS and conflate it with Jihadism. And you quote low level references on online websites.

But you fail to analyse the overall picture of Jihadism. Based on more authentic reliable, academic studies which give more nuanced views.

Read a relevant quote from Jihadism in Scandinavia: Motivations, Experiences, and Change page no. 50 Chapter 3: Jihad as a Complex Social Phenomenon :

jihadism is a military movement rooted in the long history of Islam that has been subject to much internal debate among Muslims... It is important not to conflate jihadism (defining the cause of the fight) with terrorism (defining the methods of the fight), although they can overlap. As Hegghammer (2010: 55) argues, even though some jihadists join terrorist organizations and use terror tactics, most “do not blow up planes but use paramilitary tactics in confined theaters of war.”

"It definitely needs to stay here and there's no good reason to remove it because you dislike it." I already gave good reasons, not my personal opinions and remember that MOS:TERRORIST is controversial and inflammatory. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 13:03, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Terrorism is a political and military strategy, I already know about that. The quote that you mentioned doesn't state that "jihadism" is a secular or non-religious form of terrorism, it simply draws a difference between ideology itself and the military struggle promoted by the aforementioned ideology, but that doesn't make jihadists benevolent partisans and philantropists with humanistic views towards the poor and needy.... quite the opposite. I suggest you to adopt a more neutral point of view regarding the subject of this article, because your reasoning so far seems to be quite biased and in favor of jihadists as good people who are doing their own thing and want to be left alone, instead of planning terrorist attacks and killing other Muslims and non-combatant civilians everywhere (primarily in the Middle East).

Your sources are allegedly more authentic according to whom? Nobody. That's just your opinion, not an expert's opinion. The several academic references that I provided are reliable and you should check them. Jihadism is classified as a form of Islamic terrorism and/or religious terrorism based on Islamic texts and teachings by several academics and scholars of political science cited throughout the article; stop denying the sourced informations from the cited references as if these informations don't even exist. The Category:Religious terrorism is definitely appropriate and relevant for this article, and should stay here. GenoV84 (talk) 13:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

"your reasonsing so far seem to be quite biased and in favor of jihadists as good people who are doing their own thing and want to be left alone, instead of planning terrorist attacks and killing civilians everywhere (primarily in the Middle East)" --> that's quite a big Personal attack and a violation of Assumimg Good Faith. These Discussions are not about external events or any political situation, but just this article. Despite our differences, kindly focus on the content.

The source I quoted explicitly stated: It is important not to conflate jihadism with terrorism. If you have sources supporting your framing of "Jihadism as a form of religious terrorism" quote the exact texts here in the talk page to back it up.

Or I am open to a compromise solution with categories titled "Religious Militancy" and "Islamic Militancy". This is because Jihadism is an inherently militaristic movement. But not all militant movements engage in terror attacks on civilians, women and children as an ideological or strategic policy.

It will take some time for my next response. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I didn't attack anyone, please cool down. I was just explaining the reason for which I disagree with your arguments for removal of the Category:Religious terrorism, suggesting you to check the cited references, and be more neutral regarding the topic of this article, nothing more than that. As for the exact texts, I already quoted one source in the previous replies:

Terrorism, as a highly complex phenomenon, stands at the forefront of national and international agendas. Although terrorism has a variety of different forms in terms of its association with various secular and religious groups, Jihadi Terrorism (Jihadism) is considered as one of its most dangerous forms threatening the world. Jihadi terrorism is a consequence of integrating Islamic ideology with the idea of jihad in a sense that extreme interpretation of Islamic texts contributes to the rise of violent jihad. As long as Islamic texts are entirely open to a variety of interpretations, jihadi terrorists (jihadists) take full advantage of this flexibility to justify their act of violence against combatants and non-combatants. As such, the act of violence by jihadists is mostly justified under the banner of defending Islam, preserving the rule of Allah, and creating a worldwide Islamic fundamentalist state, the Caliphate.

Here's another quote:

Jihad terrorism is ostensibly motivated by an extreme interpretation of Islam. The use of violence is regarded by its practitioners as a divine duty or sacramental act (EUROPOL 2007). The Jihad terrorists’ self-proclaimed goal is to reinvigorate the Islamic Ummah and to mobilize the Muslim community in a revolutionary transformation of the Muslim world population in confrontation with the international order spearheaded by Western society. They strive toward the creation of a new world wide Islamic caliphate, which jihad terrorists widely consider the ideal Islamic form of government representing the political unity and leadership of the Muslim world. These goals and underlying root causes are the factors and circumstances that drive the jihad terrorists. [...] In the short term, the jihadist terrorists aim for an enlargement of their supportive patronage. Therefore, the persuasion of the receptive Muslim audience via the heightening of an Islamic identity in confrontation with the West is one of their goals. This includes the wakening of the Muslim population by luring the U.S. into conflicts on the Arabian Peninsula in order to be able to engage the enemy directly. The terrorists need Western troops and their military action in the Muslim world to implement their media strategy. The presence of troops and their actions produce the desired graphic footage of western “occupation of the Islamic nations” that furthers their media-centered strategy. It thrives on images and words about every innocent civilian killed by Western bombs transmitted via television and Internet, producing intense antipathy towards the West. Building on this, the terrorists can more effectively call for the end of foreign influence in Muslim countries. [...] In the mid-term, goals include the removal of all political leaders who currently govern secular Muslim states and the elimination of the State of Israel. The terrorists' aim is to install supportive Islamic regimes and transform from a decentralized network organization to a massive Islamic movement that strives toward their desired end state.

The creation of the categories that you suggested seems trivial to me, considering that the categories Guerrilla organizations, Irregular military, Islamic extremism, Islamic terrorism, Islamist insurgent groups, Organizations designated as terrorist, Paramilitary organizations, Rebel militia groups, and Violent non-state actors already exist on Wikipedia. I mean, you can still create the categories Islamic militancy and Religious militancy if you want, but they sound too generalist and unclear to me (the word militancy has a vague meaning, anyone who believes in a certain idea and acts upon it could be considered a militant); Dietrich Bonhoeffer and other pacifist Christians could be categorized under the label Religious militancy as well along with al-Qaeda and ISIS, it doesn't make any sense to me. Sufis and Muslim Feminists could be categorized under the label Islamic militancy as well. I want to make clear that I mean no offence to you, but your proposal to replace the Category:Religious terrorism with those that you suggested to create looks like an attempt to some kind of whitewashing or "glossing over" in order to delete any categorization of terrorism from the article, despite the fact that the aforementioned reliable references refer to jihadism as "jihadist terrorism", and further classify jihadism as a form of Islamic extremism and religious terrorism. GenoV84 (talk) 15:14, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@GenoV84

So, I am a little late. I dont have the time to engage deeply with digging up academic sources, since I plan to take a break. I think it has become pointless anyway since the discussion is not going anywhere.

Regarding your reply:

() Diplomatic Courier is a DC-based foreign policy think-tank and this citation from the source () hasnt equated Jihadism with terrorism. As for rest of the sources, you just refbombed them without giving any citations. Also, the issue wasnt about "al-Qaeda and ISIS" which is entirely another topic, the topic was about Jihadism, not Jihadist organisations. Additionally, there are plenty of Jihadist organisations not part of the AQ or ISIS franchises. (You can verify that from the Category:Jihadist groups and its sub-categories)

But I noticed that you gave a citation from this academic source () in one of your replies in the discussion to back up your stance. Perhaps you should have brought such academic citations far more earlier.

The discussion has gotten very lengthy and probably debates regarding MOS:TERRORISM are more broader and hence would take a public community process. I will just end my participation here by stating that the "Terror" Label is a highly contentious, inflammatory label. And I'm out. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 06:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the key point here is that jihad-ism is a neologism that, while obviously based on the word jihad is a bit more adrift from it in terms of meaning. Jihadist doesn't simply mean someone who engages in jihad (in any of its various forms); jihadist is a term coined in the 1990s, and popularized since 9/11, specifically to refer to militant, implicitly violent Islamist groups. Jihadism does not just equal Islamists engaged in any form of struggle, non-violent or otherwise; by this point the "mainstream interpretation of jihadism" has, for better or worse, at least in the English language, become more or less inextricably bound up with the idea of violence. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@GenoV84: I have to say, I think you're barking up the wrong tree a bit here. I've reviewed all of those 10 sources that you keep posting and only the last one, the diplomatic courier, directly equates jihadism and jihadi terror, and as I mentioned in an earlier post, that is not even a particularly fantastic source: it is just a think tank. On the other and, the Nilsson source quoted above is spot on: It is important not to conflate jihadism (defining the cause of the fight) with terrorism (defining the methods of the fight), although they can overlap. As Hegghammer (2010: 55) argues, even though some jihadists join terrorist organizations and use terror tactics, most “do not blow up planes but use paramilitary tactics in confined theaters of war.” - this from an academic published by an academic publisher. However, I hope this entire discussion isn't about a category, because if it is, it's a bit of a moot point. A category does not define an article, it merely provides an indication of a topic scope that overlaps with the subject, and, yes, there is overlap here with religious terrorism. This would only really cease to be the case if 'jihadi terrorism' specifically was split into a child article, but I think we're a little way off that. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, I do not care about the category at all, one way or another, although I think it is perfectly fine if it stays given the obvious overlap in material. What I object to, and I why I am weighing in here is the assertion that jihadism = jihadi terrorism, which is erroneous. Perhaps it was just a rhetoric in this category fight, but if so, it's too fast and loose. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Finally, suggesting that other editors are just in it to right great wrongs, i.e. WP:RGW (a part of WP:TEND), is, while short of a personal attack, certainly not assuming good faith ... so something to take care with. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

That's the way in which I perceived your suggestions and those of shadowarrior regarding the removal of that category, they simply don't make sense to me and I find them questionable, but we are all here trying to improve the article in good faith. Having said that, to me it looks like almost the entire discussion was about keeping or removing that one category, and the reason for discussing about it was that another editor single-handedly decided to delete it without consensus. I understood what Hegghammer and Nilson state about the difference between terrorists and paramilitary tactics, similar arguments regarding military struggle and guerrilla strategies can be found in the sources that I quoted above as well. Regarding the assertion about jihadism and jihadist terrorism, I stated that several of these sources use both terms interchangeably (), but on the other side, other sources (such as Hegghammer, which you have quoted before) remark that "jihadism" and "jihadist terrorism" are not the same thing. However, as you said: yes, there is overlap here with religious terrorism., which is also recognized by several of the cited references in the article. Therefore we can agree that the category should stay here and move on. GenoV84 (talk) 19:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@GenoV84: Yes, I think that is actually besides the point here with regards to the category inclusion, because as I've said, I think that there is enough overlap that it should stay. But as I mentioned, I checked all of those sources, and very few of them actually use these terms interchangeably at all, and I don't think your approach of trying to win this discussion by generalizing about 10 fairly disparate sources is an intellectually rigorous or meritorious one. A single, well-selected quote from a respectable source goes a lot further than a citebombed wall of text (like we have above). Iskandar323 (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: Here's one:

The role that religion plays in the motivation of “religious terrorism” is the subject of much ongoing dispute, even in the case of jihadist groups. Some scholars, for differing reasons, deny that it has any role; others acknowledge the religious character of jihadism in particular, but subtly discount the role of religion, while favoring other explanations for this form of terrorism.

As everyone can see, this academic, reliable reference that I just provided explicitly states that jihadism is a form of terrorism; it also acknowledges that some scholars deny that religion has any role in the jihadist movement, while others recognize the religious character of jihadism. In any case, whether religious or secular, this academic source clearly refers to jihadism as a "form of terrorism". Enough said. GenoV84 (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

That's fine. I didn't say there were no sources. I simply said it was far from the only view and certainly not obviously the majoritarian view. There are many nuanced perspectives on this. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@Shadowwarrior8: My personal advice here would be to let the category issue lie. Religious terrorism does overlap with this subject, and continuing to argue about it is only going to waste your time. I would go back to focusing on the more productive activity you were already engaged in, which was adding new material to the actual page. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that we must differentiate between Jihad in Islam, and between jihadist militant groups, such as Da'ish/ISIS for example, who are the main source of terrorism, as indicated by many sources above. So somehow, I agree with GenoV84. Peace.--TheEagle107 (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

References