Talk:Jihad

(~~~~Guest~~~~), and read this. As a courtesy to other users, editors may use {{unsigned}} to help mark any unsigned comments. See Pending Tasks here.

Get more prominent source.This article is complete biased..

"The Qu’ran is unclear as to whether Jihad is acceptable only in defense of the faith from wrong-doings or in all cases. Whoever had said this line please just think, Quran is never unlcear of anything.If you are not sure please do not published these lines. We respect wikipedia for its truth and not for its fabricated story.I'm really hurt with this and will never support wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.165.216.40 (talk)

Firstly, you should not make this a personal issue. Secondly, the statement that the Quran is unclear on the issue is cited from a specific source (the link no longer appears to work, however) so what would probably be appropriate would be providing a link to an appropriate source and showing, appropriately, the different perspectives on the matter. Peter Deer (talk) 22:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Please remove

This article has many false lies. Greater Jihad IS fake. there is no such thing as a greater or lesser jihad.

the hadith is completely fake.

"We have returned from the lesser jihad (battle) to the greater jihad (jihad of the soul)." this is a fake hadith

people should know that our prophet never said this. it was his SUCCESOR !

Jihad means Struggle

Jihad can only be lead by a person directly appointed by God. Since the prophet Muhammad is the only person who spoke directly to God only he is given permission to wage war in God's name. It is not a pillar of Islam. See Sura 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 60 of the Quran. Jihad is not is most easily compared to Holy War. (which is not 1 of the 10 commandments of Christianity) See document written by Augustine of Hippo on the just war. \ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.96.148.15 (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Jihad (arab) terms that found in Holy Al Quran. If we want to translated into English means struggle to survive in good path . Al Quran use SEMiTiC ancient language. The most oldest universal language that very easy to learn. Jihad or struggle to survive just like a duty Because Almighty ALLAH created all living things which live out and in entire universe must struggle to survive. no matter how hard life is .if you are jobless go Jihad and find the job dont be a thief or corruptor. If you are poor and hungry and no money .go Jihad and be a beggar .but dont try to be a thief or a robbery . even small bee can attact us if we try to steal honey from its house let alone human being. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.189.142.180 (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Jihad (dshihaad) does not mean struggle! Jihad is not a verb it`s a noun. There are two related verbs: 1. dshahada (struggle) 2. dshaahada (fighting), so you see "struggle" is a different word. Also look at this pic for the words in arabic script: http://i17.tinypic.com/4mb474m.jpg 62.178.137.216 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Jihad literally translates to "A struggle" since it lacks a definite article (alJihad would translate to "struggle" or "the struggle"). Jahada is a form 1 verb and is thus the word's root (consonant pattern). The second word Jaahada is a form four (I believe) verb and is only tangentially related to either Jihad or Jahada. It's sort of like how Talaba means "to ask" but Taalib means "a student".

72.73.230.75 (talk) 03:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Article cleanup

This article is badly in need of cleanup. For one, there are 2 sections on "Jihad as warfare".Bless sins (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Too much repetition in the lead

The lead should be cleaned up again. Too many definitions. Such is the fate of controversial articles I guess. --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

An article like this does deserve a comprehensive, balanced and fair coverage. There's too many opinions, too much in terms of poorly sourced material (the 'History of Jihad' section which is relatively new is a mass of original research). Obviously with an article as broad as this, many sections will be summarising some of the morespecific articles (such as Islamic military jurisprudence). ITAQALLAH 20:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I intend to clean-up "History of Jihad" in the near future. So that shouldn't be a big priority.Bless sins (talk) 04:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

History of Jihad

The section "History of JIhad" has been commented out because it is very unablanced, and full of WP:SYNTH material. Some users have tried fixing the problem, and I encourage others to do the same. When the problesm are fixed (we'll know this by consensus) then we can comment 'in' the section again.Bless sins (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a mammoth task really. I actually question whether we have a need for a "history of jihad" section - as it obviously pertains to articles like Muslim history in general, Spread of Islam and the like. In that sense, it's more appropriate to discuss conquests there instead of here, and perhaps include a brief summary in this article. ITAQALLAH 19:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a need of discussing how the idea of jihad evolved. Previously I tried adding some information about the reaction of Muslims jurists (particularly Ibn Taymiyyah) regarding the concept of jihad in the wake of the Mongol invasions and the Mamluk-Ilkhanid war. Recently, there havebeen influential (and controversial) writings on the subject by Maududi and Qutb.Bless sins (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's more an issue of the varying conceptions of jihad rather than the history of all the wars ever fought by Muslims (which is what the section attempts to cover it seems). ITAQALLAH 19:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Umdat al-Salik

In an attempt to explain the differing opinions as to the reliability of the book 'Umdah al-Saalik I say the following. The book in its original Arabic is summary of the ritual opinions of the Shafi'i school of thought. The differing begins, I believe with its translation into English. I read a good deal of the translation, entitled 'Reliance of the Traveler', and observed that the translation is significantly interspersed with supplementary material. This much, perhaps can be agreed upon: that the book 'Reliance' is a translation of 'al-'Umdah' and that it has a lengthy introduction and appendix. The differing would then relate to the content of the additional material present in 'Reliance.'Supertouch (talk) 13:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Twice now my references to the ‘Umdat al-Salik have been removed, claiming it is not a reliable source. I base my reliance on it on Major Stephen Collins Coughlin's Master's Thesis "To Our Great Detriment": Ignoring What Extremists Say About Jihad (reference to which has also been removed by the same person). Coughlin states:

The ‘Umdat al-Salik is a standard Islamic legal reference whose translation into English was vetted and approved by designated national authorities from no less than four Arab states: the Imam of the Mosque of Darwish Pasha, Damascus; the Mufti of the Jordanian Armed Forces; a member of the Islamic Fiqh Academy, Jedda, Saudi Arabia; and Cairo’s al-Azhar University. From the most prestigious and authoritative institute of Islamic higher learning, al-Azhar’s endorsement is particularly on point: “We certify that the above-mentioned translation corresponds to the Arabic original and conforms to the practice and faith of Orthodox Sunni Islam (Ahl al-Sunna wa alJama’a).”

Assuming proper citation, the rebuttable presumption will be that the English language text of ‘Umdat al-Salik accurately represents the official Arabic equivalent which, in turn, is recognized as an authoritative statement of Sacred Islamic law as actually understood, explained and implemented in the Islamic world. Hence, when properly cited, the burden of proof will shift to those dissenting from the cited point of law to prove that the English language translation is erroneous or that the ‘Umdat alSalik’s statement of law is in error, is non-mainstream, or is otherwise defective in a material way. In other words, those opposed to positions that rely on the ‘Umdat al-Salik for authority will have to show that al-Azhar is wrong when it states that the translation “correspond to the Arabic original” or that the law does not “conform to the practice and faith of Orthodox Sunni Islam.” To the extent it can be shown that predominantly Muslim countries recognize Islamic law in some official capacity, especially those countries that endorsed the ‘Umdat al-Salik, the English language reader will be allowed the presumption that positions grounded in the ‘Umdat al-Salik reflect the current understanding of that same law in those countries that claim Islamic law as a basis for law. Thus, the ‘Umdat al-Salik serves as a bridge between English speaking readers and the actual operation of Sacred Islamic law as understood and practiced inside the crucible of Middle Eastern Sunni Islam.

- pages 48-50 (original) or 52-54 in the PDF available at http://www.strategycenter.net/docLib/20080107_Coughlin_ExtremistJihad.pdf

So the burden of proof falls on others to demonstrate that the ‘Umdat al-Salik is so flawed that it does not deserve to be cited here. Jwbaumann (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I will not respond to your message, but I will say that the Wikipedia policies are clear: the burden of proof for inclusion lies with the person who wishes to include content. If you wish to include material in this article, it is up to you to prove why it belongs in, it's not up to others to prove why it doesn't. Aecis^Brievenbus 21:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The "IASC" appears to be a 'think-tank' of unknown credibility, as is Stephen Collins Coughlin (what is his expertise in the area of Islamic studies, for example?). I have doubts as to whether he is a reliable, scholarly source.

As for `Umdat al-Salik (eng trans: "Reliance of the traveller"), it is a classical Shafi'ite jurisprudential primer. Wikipedia relies upon the use of academic, scholarly sources (secondary or tertiary). It is generally not appropriate here to cite classical texts directly, which themselves may be primary sources, due to problems associated with original research or misinterpretation that may arise. So you're probably better off using the comprehensive academic references available such as Rudolph Peter's Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam or Reuven Firestone's Jihad: The Origin of Holy War in Islam.

Lastly, Jihad in jurisprudence generally does refer to combat, because the jurisprudence concerns itself with the rules and ethics of combat, the pre-conditions, its pillars, and so on (and because the other categories of jihad are more 'tazkiyya' related - there's less "rules" associated with them). Jihad connotes combat against non-Muslim combatants (not simply "non-Muslims", which is extremely misleading) or even rebels or groups who are/claim to be Muslim. ITAQALLAH 21:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the following paragraph from the article:

Major Stephen Collins Coughlin's Master's Thesis meticulously documents the status of Jihad in Islamic Law, and provides powerful evidence that Jihad cannot be separated from Islam.

Saying that he provides "powerful evidence" for a certain thesis is a personal opinion, and as such doesn't belong in the article. If this is to be included, it has to be rewritten. Aecis^Brievenbus 21:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Major Coughlin's biography can be read at [1]. Information about IASC is at [2]. One of IASC's founders is a professor at the University of Pennsylvania [3]. I can find no source that suggests there is any other Islamic expert at the Pentagon, other than Major Coughlin, or that he is/was not the leading Islamic expert. There are thousands of matches on a Google search that uniformly refer to him as an expert on Islamic Law. He has a Masters in Strategic Intelligence, with a focus on global terrorism and Jihadist movements. His thesis speaks for itself - I suggest you read it. If this does not qualify him as a verifiable source, then 90% of Wikipedia's content needs to be removed.

As for the Umdat, you, in your rebuttal, have confirmed it is a verifiable source. Regardless, I am incorporating the "legal definition" into my citation of Coughlin's work. Jwbaumann (talk) 17:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You evaded the question of Umdat al-Salik. What does being a "verifiable source" have to do with whether it is reliable?

Can you provide some details about Coughlin from reliable sources? Preferably from ones he is not affiliated with?

If I can chime in real quick here, Coughlin as a source is about as reliable as John Esposito is. Basically I've never come across anything that either has said that is factually incorrect. Interpretation can sometimes be worrisome while still being factually correct, but that's another matter. And I feel that Reliance of the traveller is a very reliable source. Walbe13 (talk) 11:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, we are talking about reliable, not "verifiable", sources. His qualifications seem to show that he has no formal training in Islamic studies. Neither do we know how Coughlin is viewed by other academic scholars, nor whether this work has undergone appropriate peer review.

Presuming he is an expert, I see nothing of value being imparted by the material apart from long-winded personal opinion, itself presented in a skewed manner. I think most people know that jihad is a part of Islam. So what? The insertion as it stands violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. ITAQALLAH 19:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have made some changes to make the passage relatively more neutral. I am still unsure as to whether a) he is actually a reliable source; and b) whether these opinions actually merit coverage alongside established academic scholarship on Islam. ITAQALLAH 19:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the material cited to the "master's thesis" entirely. There is no evidence that I am aware of that this thesis was published. There is no evidence that I am aware of that this thesis was peer-reviewed. There is no reliable third party evidence of the author's credentials. Indeed, the very paper itself is revealing in this regard--it's a master's thesis, which indicates that the author does not (yet) hold an advanced degree in the subject. The very idea that Wikipedia can and should use unpublished masters theses (or perhaps even published theses, depending on the publication and peer review process) as sources is out of line with WP:V, WP:NOR, and/or WP:RS. The burden to show why to include the material falls on the editor wanting to include it. Here, that burden is a large one given the number of questions regarding the source. · jersyko talk 16:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Jihad and the Crusades

Apart from simply having no source for the claims containing, this paragraph simply has no use. What do the crusades have to do with Jihad? There's an extra article about them, we don't have to mention them here. The paragraph should be deleted, especially because it's content is not sourced and - at least partially - wrong. --Devotus (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: Why isn't there any paragraph about the early Muslim conquests? And the development of the Jihad doctrine in the Fiqh after the death of Muhammad?

The reason crusades are mentioned is an attempt by some Radical Islamist organization, or someone informed by the lesser, that Jihad is an exceptable lashing against Christians. Also' take note the section on the lesser Jihad. There is much discussion in that particular section about jihad against robbers, etc.. Yes, muslims only go after the "bad guy" the oppressing type,but of course.

"So fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush the using stratagem of war." Koran 9:5

Anyone who does not subject themselves to muslim law is considered an infidel and a non-believer or disbeliever. Here is what the internally struggling allah has to say about those people he holds so near and dear.

"So fight them until there is no more Fitnah and all submit to the religion of Allah alone." Koran 8:39

Fitnah means non-muslim, not theif, robber, bad person, non muslim military member EVERYONE that does not pay tax or convert to Islamic belief. This website is liberal, multiculturalist garbage. Wikipedia, please attempt to keep the anti-western establishments off the website who cloud truth with information that is completly inaccurate. <Educated Memeber of Society, Koran, Library of Literary Capability>

Source for "Flag of Islam" caption?

I am skeptical of the statements in the caption to the first image in the article, esp. "White flags with black lettering symbolically represent 'Dar al-Salam/Islam' and Black flags with white lettering symbolically represent 'Dar al-Harb/Kufr.'" This ought to be sourced, not merely asserted. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 19:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I do think that this conversation should be moved to Islamic flags. But, here are some links. However, I will actually join an Islamic forum, IslamicAwakening, and ask for clarification.

1. http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22On+the+wall+behind+this+black-masked+Hamas+terrorist+is+a+poster+of+Osama+bin+Laden&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a
2. http://www.flags.de/fotw/flags/islam.html
3. http://www.passia.org/palestine_facts/meaning_of_flag.htm
4. http://www.solopassion.com/node/4704
5. http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/JR/Future/ch04_the_mahdi.htm
6. http://fawstin.blogspot.com/2008/05/black-flagwhite-flag.html

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Warrington Thomas (talk • contribs) 02:27, 16 October 2008

The links (which I've numbered) do not support the caption.

1. This links to a Free Republic forum with many photos, unsourced quotes, and speculation. (I just discovered that Free Republic is blacklisted on Wikipedia.)
2. Flags.de is the best online resource I've seen, but it does not support our caption. See below.
3. The PASSIA website may be authoritative, but only covers banners up to the 12th century, and contains no information supporting our caption.
4. Solopassion.com is a blog post ("Turning the Enemy's Black Flag White") linking to a cartoon image that seems to presume the facts represented in our caption. It is hard to take this seriously.
5. The link to Answering Islam (probably not a reliable source) is to chapter 4 of Will Islam Be Our Future? by Joel Richardson. The text refers to apocalyptic lore about the Mahdi, and to traditions about Muhammad and the early caliphate. The text does not refer to a "flag of Islam," and does not describe current practice, so it does not support our caption. (The author has another book to his credit, Antichrist: Islam's Awaited Messiah, which suggests an alarmist bias.)
6. The last link is the cartoon image referred to in no. 4.

Flags.de (mirrored at flagspot.net) has several discussions about flags that use the shahada as a design element [4], but none of those flags answer to the description given in our caption. The site is devoted to vexillology, seems to be remarkably current, and pays attention to the banners of active extremist groups. Although very little of its information is sourced, it seems comprehensive. The site refers to black and white flags each bearing the shahada, and the black flag is described as the "flag of jihad," but these emblems are associated with the Caliphate (Khilafah), which no longer exists [5]. I can imagine extremist groups adopting and reinterpreting the symbols of the Caliphate in the manner described in our caption. But until we can verify that this is actually done, I am deleting the image and caption, which appears to be based on imagination. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 15:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Citations needed.

I have problems with two issues here. The first one is where the article states that: ...although conversion was not generally demanded of "Peoples of the Book," this too could be forcibly imposed on non-"Peoples of the Book" I would like to know when and where non-Muslims (People of the book or not) were forced to convert to Islam. Please cite a reliable source or remove this. The second issue is this concerning Saladin: He did this through the creation of Jihad propaganda. It stated that any one who would abandon the Jihad would be committing a sin that could not be washed away by any means." Again, I request a reliable source for this. One thing that I would clarify here is that in Islam, running away from the battle field other than for tactical reasons is strictly prohibited and considered one of the greatest 7 sins. It is explicitly stated in the Quran and in the Hadeeth. So if you are saying that Salahudin said anything other than that, then please provide a reliable source. Thank you. Enigmie (talk) 22:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Capitalized or not?

I consulted this article to find out if or when jihad (or jihadist) ought to be spelled with a capitalized initial or whether there was a difference for jihad as struggle and Jihad (?) as 'holy war' since I noticed some consistency in that respect but not a great amount. If you look at capitalization of this word in this article (other than where it starts a sentence) you will see no apparent consistency here either. I can't quite believe that these spellings should be totally arbitrary, so can anyone give guidance? —Blanchette (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Good question. I also came to this article with the same question. Jihad is capitalized consistently in an article in the Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (Uncovering the Dark Web: A Case Study of Jihad on the Web 2008 59(8)). However the word is also used consistently to mean violent war. Mellen22 (talk) 02:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Reference 17 Contradiction

The reference number 17 stating the hadith of Muhammad contradicts the source. Possible the source was used for just the hadith itself and not the meaning found in the source page, but regardless those who are trying to find more information about the history or veracity of this hadith this is a not a genuine source. I suggest finding a source that matches the purpose, not contradicts it.

Section from Wikipedia: Some Muslims believe that Muhammad regarded the inner struggle for faith a greater Jihad than even fighting [by force] in the way of God,[16] and quote the famous hadith, which has the prophet saying: "We have returned from the lesser jihad (battle) to the greater jihad (jihad of the soul)." [17]

Section from Source: 10. The saying, "We have returned from the lesser jihad (battle) to the greater jihad (jihad of the soul)" which people quote on the basis that it is a hadith, 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.

http://www.religioscope.com/info/doc/jihad/azzam_caravan_6_conclusion.htm 24.205.201.178 (talk) 22:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

i think whatever i write here CIA gonna cut my balls —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.255.51.29 (talk) 04:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

al-Jihad vs Jihad

The muslim term traditionally translated as The Holy War is not Jihad but al-Jihad. Talk about jihad merely meaning struggle ignores that the correct term is al-Jihad. Adding al, which means The, is important. The Muslim phrase commonly translated as "There is no God but God" is actually "There is no God but The God". Or no Lah but al-Lah. This is just an example, prefacing a word with al(the) matters and the difference between Jihad and al-Jihad matters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.28.105 (talk) 10:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually it's Illah. not Al-lah. also you might have been thinking of Allah. -Ayanle a. Mohamed.

jihadist is derogatory

Is "he term jihadist, technically a derogatory term for mujahid"? I have heard it many times, but I never interpreted it as being derogatory. Could someone source this?--Kiyarrlls-talk 04:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

I have added the neutrality tag to this article, because I feel that the article has a considerable Western bias, in particular emphasizing military jihad over spiritual, when most Muslims understand that "greater jihad" is more important than "lesser jihad". To start ameliorating this problem, I've changed the order of appearance for greater jihad and lesser jihad, to show that the former is more significant in Islam than the latter. In our current global political climate, it is vital that a website like Wikipedia - which is often people's first stop for information on any subject - be objective and exhaustive in its approach to this subject. —Godheval^{T C W} 15:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The emphasis placed in the article on Greater Jihad vs. Lesser Jihad is incorrect. Most Muslims know that the hadeeth cited in the article is given a grade of "fabricated" by the 'ulama. This is not a real issue and it is only propagated by certain minor sects within Islam and Western journalists. The hadeeth has two narrators that are not strong. Here is the hadeeth and its grade: ((We have come back from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad)). Baseless; "Al-Asraar Al-Marfoo'a" (211), and "Tazkirat Al-Mawdoo'at" by Al-Fitni (191)

Furthermore, Ibn Taymiyyah said in Al-Furqan PP. 44-45: "This hadith has no sources and nobody whomsoever in the field of Islamic knowledge has narrated it. Jihad against the disbelivers is the most noble of actions and moreover it is the most important action for the mankind."

Al-Khateeb al-Baghdadi reports it is daeef (weak) due to the narrator Khalaf bin Muhammad bin Ismail Al-Khiyam. Al-Haakim says, "His hadeeths are unreliable". Abu Ya'la Al-Khalili says, "He often adulterates, is very weak and narrates unknown hadith." (Mashari-ul-Ashwaq, Ibn Nuhas 1/31).

There is also the narrator Yahya bin Al-Ula who is a known liar and forgerer of hadith (Ahmad). Amru bin Ali, An-Nasai and Ad-Daraqutni state, "His hadith are renounced." Ibn Adi states, "His hadith are false." (Tahzeeb-ut-Tahzeeb 11/261-262)

Ibn Hajar said, "He was accused of forging hadith." (At-Taghrib). Adh-dhahabi said, "Abu Hatim said that he is not a strong narrator, Ibn Ma'een classified him as weak and Ad-Daraqutni said that he is to be neglected."

This hadeeth also contradicts clear verses of the Quran. Allah says:

"Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home). Unto each, Allah has promised good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward; Degrees of (higher) grades from Him, and Forgiveness and Mercy. And Allah is Ever Oft*Forgiving, Most Merciful."

Qur'an [4:95-96]

There are very few scholars more reputable than the ones provided here, and the ones who are would agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.79.133.100 (talk) 22:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Jihad resolution report

March 28, 2009 Juat a few days that Jihad resolve to bargain for vatican artifacts for the Islamic movement concerning their religious incupulation to Islamic terrorism. The fact that remains is outsourced from intel of world domination of their culture and has been ever present in the Koran especially in the movement of Iranian scarcism throughout the entire region in observance of everyday living for al Queda. The vast majority of power is within the huge monetary indiction of lost currency that has been since collected for the safety network of foreign intervension. The only missing objection is the outsource of where the Jihad travels which is silent and not real only in thought and not able to terrorize physically only mentally. The physical endowment of the Al Queda is invisible and nuclear from patterns of transfering only proccesses intelligence that will super lead the terrorist into actions other than their own acceptance of power realization thus causing the terrorist movement to be able to be recognized as the intel progresses. Amjhai is the Iranin prime minister that has the removal of a general that has been resurrected to a higher position in the fight against terror in the world. In the fight against terrorism, there are factors involved in the safty net that in the course of medical diversity controlable to the induction of new administrations and staffing keeping the same names and changing the numbers as so explained in the partnership.org website; for the most, this action is prevalient and progrefs into the acquiring of a better understanding of UN peace keeping and UN Police. As the matter of fact, this obligation is by far the removal of religious interdiction by the Amj Jihad. Then, the recreation of Islamic beliefs will have the opportunity to see, hear, and feel the New Era that has been forgotten and now in the present to the future of rememberances now left behind. The very capable are connected to what has happened in the community as a guideline to Homeland Security. Amj Jihad Reshom has shown the leaders of its' world dominations just to recap the full engagement to combat terrorism where it may be and for the most survive the major to minor peoples of the United States and it's allies in war. Amhai Recush nabar rusun nebushir undirjahdi dirusa humdefar kirishr hindi dirumjha nabr da. Narud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.253.188.35 (talk) 19:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Reference 9 discredits the statement taken from it.

The reference of 'returning from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad' attributed to Muhammad (saws) cannot be supported by the reference given. In fact, the refernce given explicitly states that that this is an unreliable, possibly fabricated statement. Either a reliable source crediting this statement as reliable needs to be allocated, or this statement needs to be removed.

In my experience, I have found no basis for such a claim distinguishing a lesser or greater Jihad. If one were found it is best to be documented in the authentic collections of ahadith to be used ligitimately as a primary supportive claim.

The section on lesser and greater jihad needs better primary source (Qur'an and Sunnah) references if it is even to be maintained. See section on controvercy. It may also benefit from opinions of well respected scholars from the early islamic period along side the contemporary opinions.

and Allah knows best

Lewcow (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

the hadith quoted about lesses jihad and greater jihad is a false one. in fact if you check the quran and authenticated hadith you will find that the only jihad spoken of is military jihad.

Yshuman (talk) 11:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Iman

{{editsemiprotected}}

The iman ( [[iman]] ) link needs to be replaced with iman ( [[Iman (concept)|iman]] ) - 58.8.15.66 (talk) 19:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done diff  Chzz  ►  20:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. 58.8.15.66 (talk) 21:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Taheri-azar letter

Is there a particular reason why an image of that letter has been chosen to head that section? The caption on it would seem to give the impression that it was placed there because critics of Islam cite it often. Or am I just imagining things? Peter Deer (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Sir Jadunath Sarkar, or Hindu fascists infitrating various topics discretely

Hindu fascists often quote, on the wikipedia and elsewhere, Sir Jadunath Sarkar; the pseudo-historian, fascist sympathiser until it became untenable to him to sustain that position at the end of 'appeasement' when Britain came to be at war against the Axis powers, and Hindu-fascist propagandist until his last breath.

They have done it again: on this page, section 2.5.

NPOV = Equal time to Hitler???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.181.131 (talk) 05:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Comparitive duties in other religions

Comparitive "duties" in other religions should be mentioned: In Judaism, we read in Scripture "You shall annihilate them - the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites - just as the Lord your God has commanded. I'm sure that similar duties exist for Christians, and some other religions too. Also, remove the reference (eg in the see also) to the "Crusades"; these were wars, not religious duties such as the Jihad; perhaps Jihad was used in some Islamic wars to start them, then the reference may be noted at that article section as a christian equivalent to these Islamic wars —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.79.192 (talk) 16:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Jihad of sword, pen, tongue and money

The first chapter of the article mentions four kinds of jihad: jihad against one's self, jihad of the tongue, jihad of the hand, and jihad of the sword. Modern Muslims ignore the jihad against one's self and the jihad of the hand and emphasize the importance of the jihad of the sword as a communal obligation. Bill Warner, one of the foremost scholars of Political Islam, distinguishes four kinds of jihad: jihad of sword, pen, tongue and money. source: http://actwestnashville.com/?page_id=544. Bat Ye'or mentions three kinds of jihad: "Jihad may be exercised by pen, speech or money." source: http://www.dhimmitude.org/archive/by_lecture_10oct2002.htm. Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld emphasizes the importance of the jihad of money (Al-Jihad bi-al-Mal). source: http://frontpagemag.com/Printable.aspx?ArtId=9283. I agree with Ehrenfeld. In my opinion, at least 90% of the global jihad is the jihad of money. Terrorist networks are not simply bin Ladens and al Zawahiris. They are also passport forgers, messengers, secretaries, financial supporters, recruiters and propagandists working as jihadists of sword, pen, tongue and money.

According to the Hanafis, jihad is “extreme and strenuous warfare in the path of Allah, with one’s life, wealth, and tongue — a call to the true religion [Islam] and war to whoever refuses to accept it”; according to the Malikis, jihad is “when a Muslim fights an infidel in order that Allah’s word [Sharia] reigns supreme”; according to the Shafi’is, jihad is “fiercely fighting infidels”; and, according to the austere Hanbalis, it is “fighting infidels.” source: Arabic manual called Al-Tarbiya al-Jihadiya fi Daw’ al-Kitab wa al-Sunna (”The Jihadi Upbringing in Light of the Koran and Sunna”), written by one Sheikh Abd al-Aziz bin Nasir al-Jalil, http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/words-matter-in-the-war-on-terror/2/

The chapter titled "Sufic view of Jihad" does not mention the most famous Sufi: Imam al-Ghazzali (d. 1111), the greatest Sufi master, Islamic intellectual, and revivalist of Islam, who is considered the second-greatest Muslim after Prophet Muhammad, wrote of Jihad: "One must go on Jihad at least once a year… One may use a catapult against them when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire on them and/or drown them… One may cut down their trees… One must destroy their useful book [Bible, Torah etc.]. Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decide…" source: http://www.analyst-network.com/article.php?art_id=1816

According to Bukhari, jihad of the sword is obligatory duty of every Muslim: “Jihad is holy fighting in Allah’s Cause with full force of numbers and weaponry. It is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars. By Jihad Islam is established, Allah’s Word is made superior (which means only Allah has the right to be worshiped), and Islam is propagated. By abandoning Jihad (may Allah protect us from that) Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape from this duty, or does not in his innermost heart wish to fulfill this duty, dies as a hypocrite.” sources: 1. http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/59458, 2. Koran 2:190 Footnote, King Fahd Complex translation 3. page 580 of the Islamic University of Medina’s translation of Sahih al-Bukhari’s Hadith; it opens Bukhari’s Book of Jihad

According to Sharia law jihad is obligatory for every Muslim who is able to perform it, male or female. source: Reliance of the Traveler (Umdat al-Saliq) translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=8AD3D2F1-FD2C-4E78-B233-2F97FCF97B94

It is generally believed that 270 million kafirs were killed by the jihad of sword. source: http://www.politicalislam.com/tears/pages/tears-of-jihad. In my opinion, the actual figure is about 300 million because the Black Death was the result of Muslim biological warfare. source: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol8no9/01-0536.htm

“The object of jihad is to bring the whole world under Islamic law.” - Bernard Lewis

"No Muslim leader can survive in a Muslim country if he announces the end of Jihad against non-Muslim countries and states that all references to Jihad in Islamic law do not apply today. Treating non-Muslim neighboring countries and individuals as equals, with respect and in peace without trying to convert them to Islam, is simply against Islamic Law." - Nonie Darwish (source: http://www.islam-watch.org/Nonie/Roots-of-Gaza-Conflict.htm)

"Many Muslim leaders tell the West in English they are against violent jihad; but in private, in Arabic, they praise the jihadists." - Noni Darwish

"Slavery is part of jihad, and jihad will remain as long there is Islam." - Sheik Saleh Al-Fawzan (member of the Senior Council of Clerics, Saudi Arabia's highest religious body)

"Muslims may not join the Jihad, but... cannot oppose it and continue to be Muslims." - Greg Swann (source: http://www.presenceofmind.net/GSW/Islam.html)

"The goal of Islam is to rule the entire world and submit all of mankind to the faith of Islam. Any nation or power in this world that tries to get in the way of that goal Islam will fight and destroy. In order for Islam to fulfil that goal, Islam can use every power available every way it can be used to bring worldwide revolution. This is jihad." - Abu Ala Mawdudi, founder of the Jamaat-e-Islami, from the book "Jihad in Islam" source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/17/islam-religion

John Esposito is a propagandist working for his Saudi paymasters, so he should not be quoted in this article. Quinacrine (talk) 18:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia may not use propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, political, religious, or otherwise. So why does this page remain unchanged??? Thriving1 (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Thriving1

Removal of 'Fabricated or Fake hadith' section

I have removed this entire sectionfor a number of reasons: 1. It is more appropriate that this section be summerized and moved to the greater jihad section. 2. The language of this section is horrible and in need of a complete overhaul; "One scholar analyzes this hadith and considers?!?". 3. The author attempts to discuss technical religious concepts while entirely ingnorant of even the basics, case in point: "It does not appear in any of the six collections of the sahih sittah, it is not even part of the collection that this hadith is a forgery." The six cannonical collections are not referred to as 'sahih' nor is a hadith being found in them a criterion for its authenticity. 4. The formatting is atrocious. 5. The only legitimate reason for beginning a section on fabricated hadith woulb be to list more than one example. Supertouch (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I will fix the formatting. Only so that you dont delete it, we need a neutral point of view —Preceding unsigned comment added by Admit-the-truth (talk • contribs) 17:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You did not fix anything: "It does not appear in any of the six collections of the Hadith," As I said previously, this does not prove anything, there are numerous collections of hadith other than the six most well-known. "this hadith is considered a forgery by many scholars." Who are these scholars and where did they say this? You need references if you are going to make such a claim. At the very least you can quote what Shu'aib Hasan said in his book on hadith terminology, or if you know Arabic you can quote the author of one of the books of fabricated hadith. Does this "Islamic Scholar Ibn Taymiyyahhas said in his authority:" mean that Ibn Taymiyyah actually said the statement beginning: ""There is a Hadith related by a group of people which states that the Prophet [peace be upon him] said after the battle of Tabuk..." Your language is unclear. "One of the counter-hadith with a better chain of transmission (and the author quotes others as well) goes like this..." What is a counter hadith? I have never heard this term. "A man asked [the Prophet]: "...and what is Jihad?" He [peace be upon him] replied: "You fight against the disbelievers when you meet them (on the battlefield)." He asked again: "What kind of Jihad is the highest?" He [peace be upon him] replied: "The person who is killed whilst spilling the last of his blood." This: "" is hardly a proper reference for this hadith. ...therefore I have deleted this section again. Supertouch (talk) 17:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok i am sorry. I just wanted a neutral point of view. I was shocked when i found out thay our prophet never said anything about lesser jihad thing, but there it is on wikipedia. That is why i wanted to show alternative views, i am not going against the lesser jihad thing , thats why i didnt delete the section. Please help me improve it, what do you want me to do? get sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Admit-the-truth (talk • contribs) 18:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all. in my opinion, your section on fabricated hadith would be best placed as a subsection following the Greater Jihad Lesser Jihad section - sort of a clarification that what has proceded in those two sections is not definitve. Secondly, you MUST clean up the language. Some of it so unclear that another Wikipedia user, such as myself, is unable to fix it. THIS is why I keep deleting your entry. Thridly, references - I gave a decent reference in English, and I know that book is on-line. I will leave the section as is for a little while to give you a chance to clean it up before I delete it again - followed by you reposting it, followed by me deleting it... Supertouch (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Arabic books, ok i dont understand arabic. i will try to find more books as references, also book are you talking abut. do u have a link? i guess i have to do mroe research. please dont delete it even if i dont find more reference, i feel it gives an EXTREMELY big neutral point of view, since the only group of people who agree witth the hadith are mainly SUFI Islam —Preceding unsigned comment added by Admit-the-truth (talk • contribs) 11:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok i added a bbc.co.uk reference, very reliable source.--Admit-the-truth (talk) 12:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

ok i have now added the books of many arabs,, i have also found this this hadith is CERTIANLY FALSE. 10000%, noone has arrtibuted it to the prophet. ONLY ON WIKIPEDIA HAVE PEOPLE ATTRIBUTED IT ! ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Admit-the-truth (talk • contribs) 12:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

the question is not whether the hadith in question is a "fake" but how influential it has been. You can even call the Quran a "fake" (how are you going to prove Muhammad really had visions), but that is irrelevant because the Quran is influential, not because it has literally been dictated by an archangel or whatever. The idea of lesser jihad was also influential, or you wouldn't have thugs with kalashnikovs jumping about calling themselves "mujaheddin". You need to read and understand WP:TRUTH.

Of course, if notable authors have called the hadith "fake", we can also report that. But whatever is going to be in the article must be in acceptably correct English. As long as you keep adding material in broken English, it will be reverted only on these grounds. --dab (𒁳) 14:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

ok i understand what you are saying. i will try to improve it, i agree it has been influential. but what am trying to do here is show people alternate views. I guess i am doing that poorly as of now. i will try improve it. what do u want me to do?--Admit-the-truth (talk) 15:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

sure, we can try to cover this properly. One step at a time.So you basically want to claim that it is a common opinion that "jihad" actually refers to warfare exclusively or primarily. That's fine. I hvave put your additions under "controversy". But they need to be cleaned up. First of all, you cannot give "references" in the form of naked urls to places like "peacewithrealism.org". You also give quotes with attributions like "Ibn Taymiyyah said in Al-Furqan PP. 44-45" Now Ibn Taymiyyah is fair enough, but what is "al-Furqan"? The article on Ibn Taymiyyah does not contain the string "furqan", so some clarification would be appropriate. And if "Al-Furqan" is a work by Ibn Taymiyyah, I would imagine it is in Arabic. Whose translation are we quoting, then, and what is the pagination "pp. 44-45"? Give the publication details of the edition of this translation, ideally with ISBN, and we are talking. Otherwise, "Ibn Taymiyyah said in Al-Furqan PP. 44-45"" is a pseudo-reference. What good does it do to give a "page number" if it isn't made clear which book we are talking about? Similar remarks go for the rest of your "references". Present your case based on actually verifiable sources, or leave them out.

As far as the BBC article goes, it has

This quotation is regarded as unreliable by some scholars. They regard the use of jihad as meaning 'holy war' as the more important. However the quotation has been very influential among some Muslims, particularly Sufis.

of this, you chose to make "It does not appear in any of the six collections of the Hadith, this quote from the hadith is considered a forgery by many scholars" which is hardly an accurate rendering of the source's content. Note how the "some scholars" seamlessly become "many scholars" because they support an idea that appeals to you, and how the BBC immediately qualifies that regardless of "unreliability" the concept has still been "very influential". This isn't neutral editing. You need to fix your references, and you need to report the content of your references accurately and neutrally. --dab (𒁳) 16:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

also, I just note that the article already had the perfectly acceptable "Middle East historian Bernard Lewis argues that "the overwhelming majority of classical theologians, jurists, and traditionalists [i.e., specialists in the hadith] ... understood the obligation of jihad in a military sense."

It isn't clear at all what you are trying to say that would go beyond that crystal clear statement. You are just adding material in bad quality that says the exact same thing that is already in the article, just in good quality. Sometimes itwould really help to read an article before engaging in an edit war over it. --dab (𒁳) 16:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I have provided loads of soruces. In the other sources it says many scholars.NOT SOME !!! Furthermore, you said that i need ISBN for quoates and not just page numbers. However i have given references to wesbites with the quaotes. but still that is not good enough i need better citation and i agree with you about references, i will truy to find some better references. but if i dont please dont delete the section, i have at least given pesudeo references as you say with links to wesbites.

Furethermore i wud like to thank you for helping improve the page. i want to clean that page up without causing problems. can u help me?--Admit-the-truth (talk) 20:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

websites are not "sources". You can use google to locate websites which in turn provide sources, but you cannot just give the url and claim you have presented 'a source'. Read WP:RS. I don't quite see how you can argue that giving "page numbers" without revealing which book these numbers refer to is in any way helpful. It still isn't clear what point it is you are trying to make beyond the "quotation is regarded as unreliable by some scholars" already in the article. From your username, and the gist of your edits, I gather the general aim of your edits would be something like "admit it: Islam is a religion of bloodthirsty thugs to the core". But of course things are never that simple. Just like Christianity, the history of Islam combines blood-soaked medieval geopolitical power-struggles with deep spirituality, and we need to cover all aspects. We have a lot of "Muhammad was a baby-eating pedophile who is rotting in hell" material at criticism of Islam and Islamophobia, since much of this is notable, but obviously we aren't going to give this the ring of "truth" simply because Wikipedia is not interested in the truth. --dab (𒁳) 09:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

So what, the turth is the truth, even if it hurts or is offensive. also people use to get married at the age of 10 just 60 to 100 years ago. whats wrong with getting married at young age.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.223.124 (talk) 15:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Jihad DOES NOT mean "Holy war"

Please stop spreading the misconception that Jihad means holy war. This is VERY wrong. I can cite several sources to reinforce this fact.

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

As my last source clearly points out, The word "Holy War" would translate to a word with "Qudus" and "Qital". Infact, the word "Holy War" is not even MENTIONED in the Qur'an. The introduction to this article itself says that it also means holy war in another context.I feel this should be removed. Consensus? Torque3000^Talk 10:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)