Talk:Boko Haram

POV much?

This article is in serious need of attention from an expert on the subject matter, especially considering what recently happened involving the group. The second paragraph cites only one source (the link of which is broken) despite its claims. Perhaps a current events tag is also in order? Xinophiliac (talk) 22:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Tag added. I don't understand the POV concern - which statement are you concerned about? All news sources I've read seem to be pretty consistent, from CNN to Al Jazeera and This Day. AndrewRT(Talk) 23:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The article does not talk about the incidents that led to clashes in June 2009 in Maiduguri, Borno State, no information was provided about Borno the headquarter of the group, nor about the different names that is given to them in different states. For instance in Borno, they are mainly referred to as Yusufiyya, in Yobe they are called with different name while in other Hausa States they are referred to as Boko haram. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.117.5.198 (talk) 23:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You're free to add in the information, with citations. 71.237.233.41 (talk) 05:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy?

The BBC is reporting that Yusuf is still alive: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8180475.stm 17:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.74.214 (talk)

That report states that he was alive when arrested; has been killed since. Wiki editor 6 (talk) 02:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, Boko Haram is also spreading the ideals that it is blasphemy against Allah and Mohommad the Prophet that the Earth revolves around the Sun. The implication in the article that they are babbling idiots is unproven; we need better qualification of their goals, even if the name Boko Haram names Western Civilization and its teachings as sinful and against Allah, in their own language: no joke, even the worst pagan can be educated, clarify it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.170.105 (talk) 00:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge with 2009 Nigerian sectarian violence

I suggest that for now let's not merge. Apparently the organization has been around for a bunch of years, and other events related to them may come to light soon. It wouldn't make sense to place them in the 2009 Nigerian violence article. Beetle B. (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I misread. If the goal is to merge bring the 2009 article into the Boko Haram one, then I'm fine with it. (Or rather, I'm fine if it stays as it is as well - no strong feelings about it). Beetle B. (talk) 14:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

seems like no consensus so i remvoe the tag

Resolved

(Lihaas (talk) 15:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)).

Boko and Haram

The first sentence seems to say that Boko Harem itself is a sin or sacreligious, which does not make sense? Hugo999 (talk) 01:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

hope its addressed now?(Lihaas (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)).

Translation of name

I removed the sentence 'The literal translation is "Association of Sunnis for the Propagation of Islam and for Holy War" because it's incorrect. Most importantly, the word 'jihad' does NOT mean 'Holy War', it means to struggle. In the Islamic context it's taken as the struggle against evil or sinful acts. The phrase for 'Holy War' in Arabic is 'al-harb al-muqadassah' which never appears in the Koran or ever used by Muslims or even the extremists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgodoy (talk • contribs) 23:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, it would be "BOOK SIN". Dunno why that hasn't made it's way into the world, boko (alphabet) clearly indicates it. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 15:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Or, upon reconsideration, in American, "Book learnin' sinful". The given translations seem off, the wrong translation register. Is there some info on what the Hausa intend in this usage? Are they subjecting the group to ridicule, making a neutral observation or what? 72.228.177.92 (talk) 19:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Unexplained reverts by Anon IP(s)

An anonymous user at IPs 188.29.5.119, 188.28.214.70 and most recently 188.28.11.120 insists on removing a "Citation Needed" request with no explanation whatsoever. I am unsure as to what is the best way to address this issue if there is no dialogue.--RDavi404 (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Add this IP to the list: 188.28.183.144--RDavi404 (talk) 03:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Give him an approproiae warning and if he continies report the IP range for a blockLihaas (talk) 08:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I should have reported that the page was semi-protected for a little while as a result.--RDavi404 (talk) 12:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

"their interpretation of Sharia"

which is...? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

It's just like the Continental Europe doesn't interpret capitalism in the same way as the United States or the United Kingdom. Or Catholic christians don't interpret the Bible in the same manner as Orthodox christians do. Malaysia and Indonesia are countries with large muslim populations but their interpretion of Sharia is not the same as in Saudi Arabia. Boko Haram has its own interpretation and this I want to emphasise.

Sin un nomine (talk) 07:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't the question. What exactly is their interpretation? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I apologise for replying so late and not reading your question properly. And unfortunatey, my friend, I am not aware at this moment of what their exact interpretation of Sharia is. But one thing is for certain: their interpretation will have little in common with how the Indonesians interpret Sharia so the emphasis on 'their interpretation'.

What I can do is, I can try to find out more about their ideology and when I'm able to do that, I will certainly insert a link into the article. Your assisstance is welcome! :)

Sin un nomine (talk) 06:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Official name

Per the source cited (among others), the official name is in Arabic not in English. This naming convention also follows those established at articles of other militant groups like al-Qaeda, Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan and Lashkar-e-Taiba.--RDavi404 (talk) 14:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You don't use Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik (official name of the USSR in Russian) you use its English translation. Similarly you don't say Zhōnghuá Rénmín Gònghéguó (official name of PRC in Chinese) instead of People's Republic of China. Why should then insist on keeping the Arabic name? Boko Haram is just an organisation after all, isn't it?

Futhur the names that you have mentioned are small. We're not translating Boko Haram here, we are translating Jama'atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda'awati Wal-Jihad which is very inconvenient to remember and even difficult to pronounce correctly.

Sin un nomine (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Yepp. 'Nuff said. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Very well. This is really a trivial detail to get upset over since no one even calls them by their "official" name...but I am going to capitalize the Arabic name.--RDavi404 (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You all might want to check sources from Nigeria. Nigerian papers use Jama’atu Ahlis Sunnah Lidda’awati Wal Jihad quite frequently. Even tabloids like the Daily Sun do. Cheers, Ankimai (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Had you said The Independant uses that Arabic term, I would have thought about it but The Sun??? That newspaper specialises in providing "The Best for News, Sport, Showbiz, Celebrities" in their own words.

Moreover most serious newspapers and other news outlets don't even use the term People Committed to the Propagation of the Prophet's Teachings and Jihad, let alone Jama'atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda'awati Wal-Jihad. They are perfectly content with using Boko Haram.

A quick search on Bing (International) comes up with:

7,750 results for Jama'atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda'awati Wal-Jihad

27,400 results for People Committed to the Propagation of the Prophet's Teachings and Jihad

3,380,000 results for Boko Haram

Finally this is an English encylopaedia and you don't expect official name of an organisation in Arabic or Russian or Chinese or Quechua... that would create a lot of confusion.

Sin un nomine (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

"...the fact that some of their own tactics and activities are anti-Islamic and anti-Sharia."

This "fact" is, according to the source cited, the opinion of the Governor of Niger State. Attribution of this belief needs to be noted.--RDavi404 (talk) 14:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Sharia is a code of conduct which doesn't condone killing innocent people. And Islam has a religion forbids suicide. Boko Haram not only sends its militants on suicide mission but it also kills innocent people. Therefore, it's both anti-Islamic and anti-Sharia.

Therefore the belief that what Boko Haram are doing is anti-Islamic and anti-Sharia is not confined to that governer. Over 50 Imams had already written to the Government of Nigeria complaining about the Boko Haram's version of Islam. And here is a link to that: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/02/nigeria-boko-haram-islamist-sect

You don't say "scientists believe Earth is a sphere." You simply reiterate the fact. Why Boko Haram should be an exception?

Sin un nomine (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The source only mentions statements from one person so therefore it is his opinion. Surely, you are not implying that there is a single interpretation of Sharia or that the Governor's opinions represent those of all Muslims? Also, I see no mention in your new link that Boko Haram is "anti-Islamic" nor "anti-Sharia." It merely states that imams were appealing to the government for security measures.--RDavi404 (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I've added another source where the current Sultan of Sokoto has called Boko Haram's actions anti-Islamic. It's not only a military officer who thinks that way. Would you mention both names now? Or that only "moderate" Muslims consider Boko Haram anti-Islamic? But then how many Muslims are fundamentalist? 75%? 50%? 25%? 10%? Perhaps not more than there are to be found in any religion.

Sin un nomine (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Naming both sources of the statements would be entirely appropriate but may make the intro too cumbersome. Alternatively, I would propose removing that clause from the lead altogether. As it stands now it is the POV of the spiritual leader of Nigerian Islam and a state governor, and really does not contribute much to the intro. Would it not be more appropriate in the "Ideology" section as a counterpoint?--RDavi404 (talk) 01:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it would be more appropriate there. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

@Rdavi404: Do you what I'm trying to adress here? Al-Quaeda is an Islamic terrorist organisation, Al Shabad is an Islamic terrorist organisation, Lashkar-e-Toiba is an Islamic terrorist organisation but Lord's Resistence Army is a rebel group in Uganda. No body calls it a Christian terrorist organisation and that's not a POV. I haven't read the Bible but I don't think it would encourage you to mutate, kill and rape people.

What Boko Haram is doing, it's sending people on suicide missions and suicide is strongly prohibited in Islam. Now if the Anglican Church or the Catholics or the Orthodox Church were denounce LRA, would you call it a POV?

If you want, I can paraphrase it like this: notwithstanding the fact that some of thier own tactics and activities like sending suicide bombers and kill innocent people are strongly prohibited in Islam and therefore anti-Islamic. (http://sala.clacso.edu.ar/gsdl252/cgi-bin/library?e=d-000-00---0edicion--00-0-0--0prompt-10---4------0-1l--1-ru-Zz-1---20-preferences---00031-001-0-0eucZz-jp-00&cl=CL1&d=HASH014b1be2d97caf5ab80fba27.3.1.1&gt=1 and http://islam.uga.edu/hamza.html)

Now it's a fact and not POV that Islam prohibits suicide and killing innocent people. What do you say?

Sin un nomine (talk) 07:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant. What you believe is or isn't against Islam. And by the way, look who's in Category:Christian terrorism... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

This is censorship in the Orwellian sense. You don't ban something, it just becomes common understanding that mentioning certain facts won't do. Preface to Animal Farm is not banned but even my text book (ICFAI University Press, Animal Farm) doesn't have it. The same applies to the article about LRA. How many people do you think would bother to go to that category after reading this opening sentence: The Lord's Resistance Army (also Lord's Resistance Movement or Lakwena Part Two) is a militant cannibalistic group with a syncretic Christian and traditional African religious ideology.

Anyway what we are discussing here is if Islam condones what Boko Haram does or not and the mainstream view is: NO, it does not.

Another thing that we are arguing about is if Boko Haram's actions (banning education, suicide missions, killing innocent people) are Islamic or not. Once again the mainstream response is: NO, they are not Islamic. And that's what I've mentioned in the first paragraph.

Moreover, no Islamic scholar (at least, to my knowledge) has come up and said he supports Boko Haram. On the contrary, I can give links to at least half-a-dozen influential Muslim scholars who have condemned Boko Haram is the strictest terms possible.

Sin un nomine (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

All we are discussing at this point is moving it from the lead into the appropriate section. I do not doubt that the vast majority of the world's Muslims are against suicide killings, but the article's topic is a group that considers itself Muslim and condones suicide attacks. (And yes, if the Anglicans denounced the LRA that would be their POV.)--RDavi404 (talk) 14:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Kindly have a look at the article now, especially the new section Ideological clash with Islam and let me know if it's as per the Wikipedia policies. Personally speaking, I find it as a kind of defence of Islam which I don't like but still I wrote it because I want the reader to differentiate between Boko Haram's Ideology and Islam. :)

Sin un nomine (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Thanks!--RDavi404 (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Unknown leader

I just fail to understand why insist on seperately mentioning that we don't know who the current leader of the group is when it's already mentioned in the first sentence of the third paragraph that not much is known about the structure and chain of command of the group. If chain of command doesn't include the group's leader, what else does?

Sin un nomine (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

ADDITION: Are you sure Boko Haram has a leader and it's not controlled by a council? It's only a speculation but not without basis. Even this report says "Since 2009 the leadership has gone underground. It’s now unclear what the exact command structure is."

Sin un nomine (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Transnational terrorist threat

While the congressional press release is relevant to this section, it is not necessary, nor desirable, to copy-and-paste all the findings and recommendations of a US Congressional Committee. It would be much better to paraphrase. See WP:QUOTEFARM for more details.--RDavi404 (talk) 14:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

What's with the bias?

As I browse through a lot of Islamist militant groups here, on Wikipedia it becomes evident that there are those who try to interject opinion into these articles rather than allowing the readers decide. I don't even understand the purpose of the "Ideological clash with Islam" section. Someone just said they're unislamic (which nearly every sect of Islam calls another sect unislamic, so should we go on Sunni and claim they have an ideological clash with Shia Islam?

I deleted one bit, regarding their clash with education... Boko Haram is against western education, that's obvious, so draw that line to saying they're against education in general is a big step. Also even the "indiscriminate" killings part, I don't get it's point, it just seems like some apologists decided let's try to distance ourselves from these guys as much as possible. Muwwahid (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Revised the title from ideological clash with Islam, to Criticism. This should curb any bias - I think it would be preferable to not have contributors :voice what they think of their interpretation of Islam; and rather cite sources from authorities on the subject as otherwise we're just seeing baseless :opinion and not anything from a scholarly source. The indiscriminate killing section irks me too, as again, it's not sourced to a scholar or authority :of Islam (which for anyone who has studied Islamic fiqh knows that casualties which are unavoidable do not make you "Unislamic" as they are :inevitable in war, also never was there a distinction between civilian and non-civilian terms don't exist in Shariah) Hoping someone can help :revise, which criticisms sourced from authorities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muwwahid (talk • contribs) 03:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

That suicide is not halal, that you should not kill women, children and the old during a battle and that you should study are three tenets of Islam which neither the Shi'as nor the Sunnis contest over. Boko Haram doesn't give a damn to Islam. All it is interested in is political power.

Sin un nomine (talk) 05:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)