Talk:Jihad

Alternative English Spellings of Jihad

I have found at least one and possibly two alternative English spellings to the word Jihad. The first is Jehad, evidenced by Encyclopedia Brittanica. The second is the Jihath, evidenced here on a Vimeo Video (warning graphic only sourced but not linked for this reason) and a PDF document that appears to go into detail about Paramilitary Groups in the area - I think that Sri Lanka has to work with in order to maintain control over the country. One of the groups is the Jihath Group and it appears to be a Jihadist group. The PDF is the fourth chapter in a work and is called "Partners in crime: SLAFs and Paramilitaries". I think this may be a transliteration issue because it might be that in some transliterations the "d" is replaced with a "th". Possibly because it is transliterated from a Desi background rather than an Arab background. I tried asking/looking around but couldn't get an answer. If anyone knows about Desi transliteration to English for Arabic please advise on if the word "Jihath" is actually the word "Jihad". I think its important because alternative spellings included are not dictionary styles in the sense that WikiPolicy wants to avoid; adding alternative spellings help reader understand what it is they are reading when they see alternative spellings elsewhere.

Baha'i section

Can someone rewrite this section for clarity? The use of the word "blotted" reflects the referenced text accurately but the summary of the Baha'i views on Jihad are very confusing in how they have been relayed. My impression from reading the referenced text is that the Baha'u'llah (Baha'i prophet) was rejecting jihad as a concept worthy of remaining in his new Baha'i era. To use the poetic language of the writing itself is a bit pointless in terms of relaying the information and inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.4.108 (talk) 04:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2018

i believe the first photo shown with the word JIHAD when searched is very wrong and misleading. Jihad means struggling for the better and i do not see how using a photo of TALIBANS raising their guns depicts the real meaning of JIHAD. JIHAD doesnt necessarily mean physical fighting, it can be a mental struggle to the path of ALLAH OR STRIVING for one's self to be better and that can simply be a photo of a person reading the QUR'AN or striving to help other people. I hope this is clear enough to for an elaboration on what JIHAD means and how misleading the photo is.

Thank you SALAM. 24.76.54.154 (talk) 00:29, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Are you by any chance referring to a photo or text shown to the right of a Google search? Google's Knowledge Graph uses a wide variety of sources. There may be a text paragraph ending with "Wikipedia" to indicate that particular text was copied from Wikipedia. An image and other text before or after the Wikipedia excerpt may be from sources completely unrelated to Wikipedia. We have no control over how Google presents our information, but Google's Knowledge Graph has a "Feedback" link where anyone can mark a field as wrong.

Purpose of Jihad

What has happened to you that you do not fight in the way of God for the oppressed men, women and children who say, "Our Lord, take us out from this town whose people are cruel, and make for us a supporter from Your own, and make for us a helper from Your own". (Al-Quran 4:75)

I want to write the purpose of Jihad that is manifested in mentioned verse of Quran. Its purpose is to save men, women and children of any faith from oppression. I want to add this as Quran is considered verbatim word of God in Muslims view while they observe carefully to their second authority that is Hadith (which are quoted without giving their authenticity in muslims’ view) and Muslim jurists give conditions to check their authenticity. So as it is an article on Islam. So it is my humble request that muslims’ view of Jihad should also be given due weight. Smatrah (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2020

Islamqa is an unreliable source. Either SPS or worse. Recommend reference to it be removed. See WP:reliable sources noticeboard for more info. 119.152.156.92 (talk) 13:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's being referred to directly, not used to source any other information in the article. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

its actually original research. No secondary sources discussing this means not going to be included, we dont do original research here. Its also not a reliable source.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Sixth Pillar of Islam

Why is a fringe opinion that not even terrorist groups hold something that's espoused on the front page of this article? It's a loaded statement and it is in bad faith even if it is acknowledged that its only "sometimes called" that. In fact the only people I can find actually referring to it as the sixth pillar are non muslims. Maybe if you can find an actually fiqh text that says that instead of Esposito I'd accept it. But even if there are some people who call it that why does something like that need to be on the front page of an article that supposed to be about Jihad in general? The pillars of Islam come from the hadith:

Ibn Umar reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, said:

بُنِيَ الْإِسْلَامُ عَلَى خَمْسٍ عَلَى أَنْ يُعْبَدَ اللَّهُ وَيُكْفَرَ بِمَا دُونَهُ وَإِقَامِ الصَّلَاةِ وَإِيتَاءِ الزَّكَاةِ وَحَجِّ الْبَيْتِ وَصَوْمِ رَمَضَانَ

Islam is built upon five: to worship Allah and to disbelieve in what is worshiped besides him, to establish prayer, to give charity, to perform Hajj pilgrimage to the House, and to fast the month of Ramadan.

-Bukhari

No mention of Jihad in that.FullMetal234 (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@FullMetal234: The statement accurately reflects the cited source, which is a standard university textbook, published by Oxford University Press. One can quickly verify that similar statements appear in other prominent academic textbooks. So, the statement is well-sourced and reflects an authoritative academic viewpoint, satisfying the core policies, WP:V and WP:NPOV. Please consult these policies, as well as WP:NOR. The statement also appears in the cited source as the opening statement of a paragraph-long description of jihad, which is an even more prominent placement than in our article here. There's nothing there about requiring direct citation of religious texts. In fact, our articles should be based primarily on reliable secondary sources, and not directly on religious texts, as explained in the policies I cited above. Eperoton (talk) 03:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

The fact that this is not an orthodox view in either sunni or shia islam should prevent it from being mentioned in the front of an article that is about be about Jihad in general. Why are so called academic sources, more valuable about Islam than what actual Muslims (as well as the Prophet himself) say about Islam. If you want to make claims about Islamic Law then cite an actual manual of Islamic law not some orientalist "professor" that doesn't know arabic. Tom Holland, Patricia Crone etc and their ridiculous theories about how Mecca is actually Petra and what not also come from "academic" sources. As far as I can tell the only people who actually consider it the sixth pillar of Islam are non muslim orientalists. If you're going to say the qualifying statement that "some" call it the sixth pillar, perhaps you should actually say WHO calls it that. "Some" is not enough.FullMetal234 (talk) 12:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not saying that academic sources are more valuable than religious sources. I'm saying that academic sources are generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact by Wikipedia policy, while religious sources are not, as you can verify yourself by reading WP:V, WP:RS, and other policies and guidelines. There are many sites on the web that present this information from a religious point of view, and you're welcome to contribute there or start your own. WP articles have to follow WP policies.

As for specifying who refers to jihad as the sixth pillar of Islam, I don't recall that the sources I checked specified that information. You're welcome to find RSs that do, and then we can incorporate those details into the article. Eperoton (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

If they don't specify who said it then its not worth putting it. "Some people" also say the Prophet Muhammad was sub saharan african, guess we should put that in as well and act like its a legitimate and worthwhile opinion. FullMetal234 (talk) 12:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion, but that's not what policy says, and so we can't follow your suggestion in the article. Per WP:NPOV, we reflect what RSs say, regardless of whether they specify such details. Eperoton (talk) 03:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Esposito never mentions who these "some" are in his book and there is zero citations given for this claim in the book itself. This is not a reliable source. FullMetal234 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:23, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Removal of content

Rupert loup, the content you removed is indeed mentioned in Islam: Faith and History, I checked.VR _talk 22:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

My bad, I don't know why it didn't show up in my first search. Thanks for the heads up. Rupert Loup (talk) 22:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I think that Mahmoud Ayoub's interpretation of the concept is not fully represented there. Here is how he describe the concept:

To sum up, Islam is a religion of continuous personal and societal reform through disciplined worship. The five pillars of Islam involve individual and communal obligations meant to provide the proper context for social, religious and, above all, spiritual reform. This process of disciplined reform is called jihad, "striving" or "struggling." the greatest Jihad is the struggle of every person against the evil of their own carnal soul. However, depending on social and political circumstances, Jihad can become an obligation as well as a process. Jihad may be regarded as a sixth fundamental obligation (faridah) incumbent on every Muslim when social and religious reform is gravely hampered or the community's integrity threatened. In a situation where the entire Muslim ummah is in danger, ijhad becomes an absolute obligation (fard 'ayn). Otherwise it is a limited obligation (fard kifayah), incumbent upon those who are directly involved. These rules apply to armed struggle, of the jihad of the sword. This, and the struggle to reform society and rectify its social, moral, and political ills, is called jihad fi sabil allah ("strugle in the way of God"). Another and closely related form of jihad is jihad bi-al-qur'an, that is jihad by means of the Qur'an. The Prophet is commanded, "Do not obey the rejecters of faith but wage a great jihad against them by means of it [the Qur'an]" (Q. 25:52). This form of Jihad is as imperative today as it was in the time of the Prophet. Yet the greatest and most fundamental striving is the jihad of the spirit, which was called by the Prophet "the greater jihad." It is jihad fi-allah, "struggle in God." As God declares in the Qur'an: "As fo those who strive in Us, We shall guide them to Our ways" (Q. 29:69) These are the ways of peace, to which God shall "guide those who seek His good pleasure" (Q. 5:16). The goal of true jihad is to attain a harmony between islam (submission), iman (faith), and ihsan (righteous living).

I added the full quote, but it should be paraphrased in a concise text. Rupert Loup (talk) 23:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think that quote is too big. Being in a section on Jihad#Other_spiritual,_social,_economic_struggles the original usage was presumably meant to highlight the use of the term "jihad" in non-military contexts.VR _talk 14:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Rupert Loup, I noticed you wrote ijhad, so I changed it to jihad. But I noticed you changed it back. Was that intentional? VR _talk 18:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Vice regent No, it was a mistake by editing an old version. I tried to improve the content the best I could, do you think that the current version is adecuate? Rupert Loup (talk) 18:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)