User talk:Jason from nyc

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

ISIS Talk page - Ideology and beliefs[edit]

There are two comments (from me and Mhhossein) which you will not have seen before making your comment just now. This is because there were two "Ideology and beliefs (3)" sections running earlier today. I had copied the first one to the end of the Talk page, then clean forgot to delete it! You understandably added your comment to the old version; our comments were added to the new version at the end. I have added in your comment before ours, as it didn't seem fair to you to put it after ours when you had not seen them. That's why the times are out. Many apologies! --P123ct1 (talk) 14:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for merging these. I was wonder what happened. Let me give others a chance to weigh in. Again, I may be away for a few days. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


Hi. I invite you to contribute to Islamic terrorism, or tell your opinions in the talk page of the article on 'terrorists' as I have seen you elsewhere and appreciate your objective views. Thank you. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 11:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the invite and vote of confidence. I wish I had the time. I'll keep it in mind. Jason from nyc (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Never mind. Nice meeting you. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 19:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Description of Scholars[edit]

Hi Jason, I'f just like to check the addition of the text ", primarily Sufi," in this edit The reference ( ) mentions "coming from scholars that are of mostly sufi leaning." I'm not sure whetehr this is the muslim matters authors point of view, whether it reflects a view of Sufi sympathy or whether it reflects origins. Given the extents of populations such as that of Sunni Islam I find the muslim matters wording a bit of a stretch. Sources seen so far mention Sunni scholars. Gregkaye 07:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

It's something I noticed a month ago and wrote about it on the ISIL talk pages (still there) where I said, "The only Saudi signer, Al-Sayyid Abdallah Fadaaq, is the leading Sufi cleric of the Hijaz. ... The Pakistani signer is Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri, a Sufi scholar as I suspect Muhammad Suheyl Umar is as well [1]." I wondered about the other signers. Apparently this author, who is also the publisher and founder of Muslim Matters, states that that the signers are mostly Sufi. Sufi, is of course, Sunni but the mystical branch of the Sunni tradition. The author also questions the representation of other signers in that their politics are hostile to what he sees as an anti-imperialist movement. This also includes supporters of the Egyptian regime that removed the Muslim Brotherhood. While the author is critical of ISIL he doesn't believe the signers are respected by those, perhaps like himself, that are targets for ISIL recruitment. I didn't include any of this in the article since the article isn't about the document, its theology, or even its politics. The author seems to know the signers, what they stand for, and how they may be viewed in the Salafi jihadist community. (He's gone beyond a superficial report and has critically assessed the diverse backgrounds as to the possibility of reaching prospective recruits. This gives us some sense of the reception of this document in the Muslim community.) Jason from nyc (talk) 12:50, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Cheers m8. I'm stunned. I did some checking myself and it seems to be at least roughly as you say. I also find it odd that the document doesn't even mention Sunni or Sufi when these are obviously relevant issues and, even though I'm still not fully convinced, I also feel pretty cynical about the way so called "reliable sources" could end up endorsing as "Sunni scholars". I despair. For want of clearer information I'd still prefer the direct use of citation wording as, "scholars that are of mostly sufi leaning". I'm just aware that the article on Sunni Islam describes it as "the largest branch of Islam" and am still open to the idea that the supposed RS might not be completely up the creek and that many Sunnis may have been involved. Gregkaye 19:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
That wording--"scholars that are [of] mostly Sufi leaning"--is fine. Yes, it seems that RS aren't doing their homework. They aren't digging and asking questions. I know journalists are limited as RS, but they are the "first draft of history" and one would hope they actually read the document, researched the signers, and perhaps called a few! (The lead of the article on Sufism seems to say it is and isn't just about everything. It must be one of the toughest aspects of Islam. I remember one book called it an umbrella term with variants of Sufism dependent on regional differences. The Indian variant often shares Saints and shrines with other religions.) Best of luck with your research ... it isn't easy. Jason from nyc (talk) 23:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Bank on[edit]

Face-smile.svg Thank you for this which, in good ways, made me laugh Face-grin.svg which was very welcome. TY Gregkaye 06:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad someone got it ... and I too thought we could all use a good pun. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)