Talk:Islamic terrorism

Article of the Subject

This an article on "Islamic Terrorism". The definition of terrorism is not the definition of "Islamic Terrorism". Citing sources related to "Terrorism" is not citing article related to "Islamic Terrorism" and removing the definition that "Islamic Terrorism" as Religious Terrorism is wrong. A lack of understanding about how to read, especially sources, but also opposing arguments is not a valid reason to revert, it is your own failing, not that of the facts which you are reverting. I also repeat that the original research that follows your incorrect definition is still not welcome. - Jimmi Hugh (talk)—Preceding undated comment added 16:45, 26 May 2009(UTC).

Nomination for deletion of Template:Islamic terrorism

Template:Islamic terrorism has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.

(OT) Views of Jihad of different Muslim groups

You could integrate this stuff to the more revelant articles somehwere.

Ahmadiyya view

Main article: Ahmadiyya view on Jihad

In Ahmadiyya Islam, pacifism is a strong current, and jihad is one's personal inner struggle and should not be used violently for political motives. Violence is the last option only to be used to protect religion and one's own life in extreme situations of persecution.

Sunni view

See also: Opinion of Islamic scholars on Jihad

Jihad has been classified either as al-jihād al-akbar (the greater jihad), against one's ego (nafs), or al-jihād al-asghar (the lesser jihad), the external, physical effort, often implying fighting (this is similar to the shiite view of jihad as well).

Gibril Haddad has analyzed the basis for the belief that internal jihad is the "greater jihad", Jihad al-akbar. Haddad identifies the primary historical basis for this belief in a pair of similarly worded hadeeth, in which Mohammed is reported to have told warriors returning home that they had returned from the lesser jihad of struggle against non-Muslims to a greater jihad of struggle against lust. Although Haddad notes that the authenticity of both hadeeth is questionable, he nevertheless concludes that the underlying principle of superiority internal jihad does have a reliable basis in the Qur'an and other writings.

On the other hand, the Hanbali scholar Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya did believe that "internal Jihad" is important but he suggests those hadith as weak which consider "Jihad of the heart/soul" to be more important than "Jihad by the sword". Contemporary Islamic scholar Abdullah Yusuf Azzam has argued the hadith is not just weak but "is in fact a false, fabricated hadith which has no basis. It is only a saying of Ibrahim Ibn Abi `Abalah, one of the Successors, and it contradicts textual evidence and reality."

Muslim jurists explained there are four kinds of jihad fi sabilillah (struggle in the cause of God):

• Jihad of the heart (jihad bil qalb/nafs) is concerned with combatting the devil and in the attempt to escape his persuasion to evil. This type of Jihad was regarded as the greater jihad (al-jihad al-akbar).
• Jihad by the tongue (jihad bil lisan) is concerned with speaking the truth and spreading the word of Islam with one's tongue.
• Jihad by the hand (jihad bil yad) refers to choosing to do what is right and to combat injustice and what is wrong with action.
• Jihad by the sword (jihad bis saif) refers to qital fi sabilillah (armed fighting in the way of God for defensive purposes, or holy war to prevent a greater loss of lives), the most common usage by Salafi Muslims and offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Some contemporary Islamists have succeeded in replacing the greater jihad, the fight against desires, with the lesser jihad, the holy war to establish, defend and extend the Islamic state.

Name of article

Can this article be renamed to 'Islamist Terrorism'. It's less of a sweeping statement, and acknowledges that not all muslims approve of these acts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.171.47 (talk) 14:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I was having similar thoughts. Islamist refers to Islamism, i.e "Political Islam", while Islamic simply refers to Islam, the religion, so it would appear more logical to use the title 'Islamist Terrorism'. However, we need to also consider normal usage, and we see:

• Google Websearch:
  • "Islamist terrorism" 893,000 results
  • "Islamic terrorism" 1,670,000
• Google Books:
  • "Islamist terrorism" 22,200
  • "Islamic terrorism" 53,100
• Google Scholar:
  • "Islamist terrorism" 3,620
  • "Islamic terrorism" 8,200

Anyone care to share further thoughts on this? --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 11:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned below, the term "islamism" is controversial and also it is used by people with a specific viewpoint, while the term Islamic terrorism is used by people across the spectrum. We could rename it "Islamic relgious terrorism", which is also used and is less ambiguous, but we should also rename Christian terrorism, etc. as well. TFD (talk) 18:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I see your point. I don't think "Islamic religious terrorism" is an ideal solution. The word Islamic (or Christian) includes, by default, the notion of 'religious'. Think "Islamic religious law" vs. "Islamic law". You say "Islamic religious terrorism" is "also used", but Gsearch gives just 51 results for it, and Gbooks just 9 (compare the results above). As the most commonly-used and most easily recognizable term, I suspect the current title is the most appropriate, despite my reservations as expressed above. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Difficulty with opening sentence

The word "terrorism" isn't found anywhere in Islam..instead the foundation of this word refers back to the crusades against Islam..( and although, the crusaders were Christians, the word only refers to the people of that time instead of generalizing the whole group).Likely, Islam is a religion rather than a "group". In fact, Islam prohibits terrorism and prohibits harming those who are innocent, peaceful, elderly, women, children..etc. Islam only encourages people to defend themselves against attacks. Some groups use Islam to justify their actions of terror and that's exactly what the media and the people want to hear. The opening sentence currently reads:

Islamic terrorism (Arabic: إرهاب إسلامي‎ ʾirhāb ʾislāmī) is acts of terrorism committed by Muslims for the purpose of achieving varying political and/or religious ends.

Aside from the stylistic calamity of "Islamic terrorism is acts...", there is a problem in that the current wording implies that any terrorist act is an act of Islamic terrorism if the religion of its perpetrator is Islam. If for example a Real IRA member, who happens to be a Muslim, carries out a bombing in Northern Ireland, does that make his/her act one of 'Islamic terrorism'? Of course not. I propose the following rewording:

Islamic terrorism (Arabic: إرهاب إسلامي‎ ʾirhāb ʾislāmī) refers to acts of terrorism committed for the purpose of achieving varying Islamist political and/or religious ends.

This applies a link to Islamism, which is the driving force behind Islamic terrorism, rather than Islam, which is the religion of many who offer no support to, nor have any connection with, Islamic terrorism. Are there any other viewpoints? --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 12:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Islamism and Islamic are not synonymous. Your proposed definition would exclude secular Muslim groups, such as Black September. Many scholars recognize the existence of secular Islamic terrorism. See for example Radical Islam in the West: Ideology and Challenge, By Brian R. Farmer, p. 107. Marokwitz (talk) 16:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

"Islamism and Islamic are not synonymous." Agreed - see the preceding section. What is your justification for describing the Black September (group) as "Islamic terrorism", since it counted among its members Christian Arabs? Like the PFLP whose founder, George Habash, was Christian, their fight had nothing to do with Islam - they were a Palestinian nationalist paramilitary group, which counted Muslims, Christians and others among their number.

Is it your contention that a terrorist act done by someone who happens to be Muslim must be "Islamic terrorism", irrespective of the goals, context, etc. of said act? That's what the opening sentence currently says. Can you (or anyone) suggest a better way of avoiding this, than my proposal? --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold and implement the non-substantive part of my proposal, i.e change 'ís' to 'refers to', now. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying that any terrorist act done by someone who happens to be Muslim must be Islamic terrorism. Your IRA example is perfectly valid. I'm just raising the point that at least some scholars include secular, non Islamist, predominantly Muslim groups, acting to fulfill political non religious goals, in the definition of this topic. Your proposed definition is a bit too narrow in this respect. Marokwitz (talk) 07:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The term "secular Islamic terrorism" seems something of an oxymoron. Gbooks and Gscholar find not a single hit for the term, while a web search turns up one lone case of user-generated content. What text in Farmer are you referring to? I've gone to the page you cite and found nothing to support the contention that the author includes in the term "Islamic terrorism" the activities of secular groups such as Black September and other leftist Palestinian paramilitaries. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 14:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Black September is given by Farmer as an example for Islamic violence within Western countries even though it was mostly a secular group. The "Muslim world" includes secular elements which are not practicing the Muslim faith yet are influenced by the symbols and heritage of Islam. See also our article Religious violence - Robert Pape, a political scientists who specializes in suicide terroism argues that much of the modern Muslim suicide terrorism is secular based. Marokwitz (talk) 15:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

All the sources I have seen that present a typology of terrorism include it as a type of religious terrorism, defined by Aubrey as "the use of violence to further divinely commanded purposes".[1] It is distinct from Arab nationalist terrorism which included Christians and atheists. BTW the way I would not use the term "Islamist" in the definition because it a controversial term and is somewhat circular - someone who commits terrorist acts to advance their version of Islam is an Islamist. Marokwitz, would you call a Christian who committed an act of Arab nationalist terrorism a Muslim terrorist? TFD (talk) 17:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

T4D, your post in the above section prompted me to look at the Christian terrorism article. Based loosely on the opening sentence there, what about this to replace the opener here:

Islamic terrorism (Arabic: إرهاب إسلامي‎ ʾirhāb ʾislāmī) is religious terrorism comprising terrorist acts by groups or individuals who claim Islamic motivations or goals for their actions.

This appears to address the difficulty I raised at the top of this section, while addressing (I think) Marokwitz's concerns about my earlier proposal. --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that example is a much better definition than what the article currently has. It's absurd to call an act of terrorism for varying political ends Islamic terrorism simply because a Muslim is responsible for the act. 198.204.141.208 (talk) 22:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It is better. But is it not more correct that rather than claim motivation they are motivated by their own interpretations of their religion? TFD (talk) 22:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The offered example is clear and almost identical to the first line for Christian terrorism. Those are two things that make me prefer it. I'm not sure how far down the rabbit hole your question might lead. I think I agree, but given Wikipedia depends on written words ('claims') and not telepathy ('their own interpretations of their religion') I think we are better off defining something based on what can be a reliable source rather than synthesis. If you have an example you'd like to offer I will happily say whether I like yours or the one above. 198.204.141.208 (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

We should use sources. I recommend using an article for a definition of religious terrorism and then saying that theis article is about religious terrorism where the religion is Islam. TFD (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Widely supported

"... Hezbollah's rocket attacks against Israeli civilian targets are widely supported in the Muslim world and [emphasis mine] regarded as defensive Jihad by a legitimate resistance movement rather than terrorism." The sources noted at the end of this sentence are manifestoes which make no representation of any rocket attacks being widely supported by anyone. I think removing the bolded part above better represents the sources. 198.204.141.208 (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hearing no objections, I am removing "widely supported in the Muslim world and" from the quoted line I mentioned above. 198.204.141.208 (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I changed the line to "Muslims living in the West denounce the September 11th attacks against United States, while Hezbollah contends that their rocket attacks against Israeli civilian targets are defensive Jihad by a legitimate resistance movement rather than terrorism." 198.204.141.208 (talk) 22:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

OBL lead

It is my opinion that the intro on OBL should be deleted from the lead and merged into the body of the article. Is it fair to include the media's depiction of Islamic terrorism? Islamic terrorism is an extremely broad subject, AQ is merely one organization. The fact that OBL is now dead should also be considered.

I suggest expanding the definition of Islamic terrorism in the lead, and leave it at that. List various reasons in the body.

And if editors are going to enumerate the inspirations of OBL philosophy, it would be better of us to base our edits on OBL's manifesto. Big difference between OBL and Al Qaeda in Iraq. Manifesto goes on about re-conquering the Iberian Peninsula, re-invading India, removing Western-supported dictatorships, etc.

Suggestions? Wikifan^{Be nice} 12:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Opinion Surveys

The Gallop Poll and the ABC News/BBC/NHK poll should be sourced or removed. Tomsv 98 (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)