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.

Assassinations

The history of jihad is long and complex, and usually involved Muslim armies waging war. Political assassinations are usually not considered Jihad. The source cited in this article,[1] doesn't refer to fedayeen as conducting a jihad. Such material should be replaced with actual history of jihad.Bless sins (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

David Cook

David Cook should have an article. Therefore there should be a (red) link. Because the article is closed, I can't do that. There are often citations of his books in the literature. --R. la Rue (talk) 23:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

A correction request

Under the paragraph Usage of the term and sub-label the best of Jihad citation #25. there is a reference to a chapter in Qur'an, Al-Baqarah verse 15 as saying: The best jihad is the one in which your horse is slain and your blood is spilled. But the quotation appears only in the book by Ibn Nuhaas, and the way the text is put right now, it shows as if this appears in Quran Chapter: al-Baqarah, verse 15.--In Allah We Trust (talk) 11:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC) Islamiste in U.S. or Europe are not in a position

to lead a Krig in customary fashion. Now-a-days, a jihad is a partisan Krig. It would explain the well. Modern Jihad, shapes and methods, "Jihad - type" declare for persons who are interesting and clear. So they have a jihad or Djihadist timely detect.Elbrussel (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The BBC???

I do not think it's appropriate to include a definition by the BBC as if the BBC is some kind of authority on the subject. I would therefore suggest that the paragraph which begins "according to the BBC, a third meaning of Jihad is..." be removed. The BBC is a media organisation, not an authority on the definition of Jihad. It is inappropriate to include their propaganda in an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.38.82 (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Needs to be removed ASAP. (Iamcyclops (talk) 01:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC))

Resistance against globalization

Minjitaism (talk) 04:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Minji KimMinjitaism (talk) 04:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC) Hi, I would like to add another content under 'Usage of the term':

Resistance against globalization
Benjamin R. Barber modified the term Jihad to point out the resistant movement against globalization (which he refers to as 'McWorld') as well as the modern-institutionalization of nation states. The forces of 'Jihad' come from fundamentalist ethnic groups who want to protect their traditions, heritage and identity from modernization and universalized markets. The resistance has led to fragmented, small-scale violent conflicts between cultures, peoples and tribes. Although 'Jihad' strengthens the solidarity within the resisting group, it obeys to hierarchy and cannot tolerate foreign influence, which discourages democracy.

References:

see also: [[2]]

Still not written as a proper encyclopedia article

Realizing this is a sensitive topic for a variety of reasons, this article still reads a lot more like an essay than an encyclopedic article. To begin with the topic is not entirely clear. The article focuses much more on defining the term (making it more of a dictionary entry than encyclopedic) and does not try to clear discuss a concrete topic per se.

I would point out a couple of things:

• First, if you look in English-language dictionaries (this is an English Wikipedia article, not an Arabic or Islamopedia article) jihad is defined, not as in the Quran, but as warfare. Granted, some of that definition is rooted in bigotry but it is problematic to say that Wikipedia believes the proper definition of a word differs from the dictionaries say.
• Second, concept of jihad used by extremists is a notable topic in and of itself. There is an existing article jihadism that talks about this. But it is problematic to say that jihad and jihadism are not the same thing. This seems gratuitously misleading.

My suggestion:

• Move the content of this article to an article named something like "Jihad (Islam)".
• Change this article "Jihad" to be a disambiguation article wide links to both "Jihad (Islam)" and "Jihadism".

That would be an effective way to remove bias from the discussion.

-- MC