Jump to content

Talk:Islamic extremism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2022 and 6 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JeshuaBernal (article contribs).

Templates

[edit]

This article was listed as a set index/disambiguation page, but it really isn't; I've re-listed it as a stub. It could do with being expanded by someone who knows more about the subject (and has access to the sources given), maybe as a broad concept piece. Moonraker12 (talk) 13:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a stub for 7 years. Perhaps we should admit that it is really a disambiguation page. After all, "extreme" means "to a great degree" and begs the question "degree of what?" The 1st choice suggests an extreme literalness, i.e. Islamic fundamentalism. The 2nd choice suggests the extreme measure of armed struggle, i.e. Jihadism. The 3rd choice suggests an extreme tactic, i.e. Islamic terrorism. Clearly after 7 years we have nothing but a disambiguation page to allow the reader to choose among different kinds of extremism. And so it is. Jason from nyc (talk) 04:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Islamic extremist groups

[edit]

@Coriantumr15: This list appears to be subjective. Are there any reliable sources to verify the list of groups that you added to this article? Jarble (talk) 06:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jarble: All of these groups advocate the subjugation and intentional violence against the unbelievers. I completely agree with the important need to appropriately document such claims. Be patient, it is a giant work in process. Coriantumr15 (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Coriantumr15: Of course, it will be necessary to avoid original research when compiling this list. Which lists of Islamic extremist groups should be cited in this article? Jarble (talk) 02:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jarble: I am using the Wikipedia list at Islamism - "Parties and organizations: This is a list of parties and organizations which aim for the implementation of Sharia or an Islamic State". Trying to pull in documentation to verify which groups are trying to use either peaceful means or violent means to enforce Sharia Law in their country. That list covers some 120+ groups in many, many countries around the world. Coriantumr15 (talk) 03:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This list quite notably lacks the Taliban in Afghanistan. And this is only made further outstanding by the inclusion of the Pakistani Taliban, which bizarrely outright distinguishes itself from its unmentioned sibling in Afghanistan. I feel that the original Afghan chapter deserves greater note. Mleonard85032 (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List needs to be added to

[edit]

Very useful list potentially but as of right now it is missing a lot, I literally just added ISIL after years of it not being there. Get groups from here that are actively involved in armed activities including terrorism. I realise that this is very hard to draw the line at but as an example definitely on the non-include side are groups like Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS) which are just political parties and do not even have any militia.MarkiPoli (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of some information

[edit]

I have removed a rather extensive treatment of a recent UK case from the article. I don't have any objection to the case's definition of extremism being briefly summarized in the article, but the whole-cloth quoting from the text seemed like too much. /wiae /tlk 13:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more context to show the relevance

[edit]

Hi Wiae, thanks for helping to get this page into shape. You're right, as written that single UK court did not seem so signficicant.

So I have pulled from the UK high courts findings website, the two cases that address directly islamic extremism: and have mentioned them both abd provided source URLs.

On that basis I put back in the 10-point definition that the Judge in the Shakeel Begg used: as it provides a digestible (not too much legalese!) definition.

If you think this need further framework to explain the sigificance of the 10-pint framework - do shout.

Or if you think the case is significant to get it's own page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CanterburyUK (talk • contribs) 13:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@CanterburyUK: Looks good to me. I find court judgments can be really long-winded, so I prefer the approach of summarizing the factors mentioned in the case law, as you've now done. Let's see what others think, but there might be an opportunity to expand the article by looking at court rulings in other jurisdictions too. /wiae /tlk 02:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Islamic extremism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

+Should be moved to Islamist extremism== "Islamist" refers to an extremist political movement supporting an Islamist state. "Islamic extremism" implies the guilt of all Muslims. It is an unencyclopedic loaded term.See CNN on the difference, HuffPost. Edison (talk) 02:19, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it should be referred to as "Islamist extremism" or "Muslim extremism", instead of Islamic, since the tenets and practices of Islam have nothing in common with terrorism. Izan Mehdi. (talk) 14:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hezbollah

[edit]

@Joobo: Your sources are not used in Hezbollah article, they're used for something else, not for proving they're "extremist". The authors may be credible in something else (and they can be cited in those subjects), but they don't have a say in Islamic Studies and you can't cite them to prove Hezbollah is an "Islamic extremist" organization, you need a peer-reviewed source by an Islam scholar. -- 165.227.72.77 (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dawn Bard: Kindly revert your edit, I have explain it here in the talk page and in my previous edit summaries. The sources are not reliable because they are not written by specialists in Islamic Studies. This is controversial and needs a reliable source written by experts, not any source. See WP:RS. 165.227.144.139 (talk) 06:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Dahr Jamail" is just a journalist, he doesn't have a say on this. The other source is written by an unnamed man from "Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs", Israel is the archenemy of Hezbollah. The claim that Hezbollah is "extremist" clearly needs a better source and you can't just publish it based on some unreliable sources. 165.227.144.139 (talk) 09:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And interestingly, even the source by "Dahr Jamail" is a fake one and his article is misrepresented. What he said about Hezbollah is this: "[Hezbollah] has successfully transformed itself from a radical extremist group into an effective political force". Check it here. So you are basically using a fake source to publish something controversial, and you are denying other users' right to correct the article. 165.227.144.139 (talk) 09:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Joobo, Dawn Bard, and Jusdafax: It looks like the IP user has a point. One cited source is misused and our articles on extremism can't list anyone called extremist by their political opponents. We need some sources that can be reasonably called reliable and neutral. Eperoton (talk) 00:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Quick rundown of sources at Oxford Reference:
1) "A radical Islamic fundamentalist party and guerrilla organization." A Dictionary of Contemporary World History (4 ed.) Oxford University Press; 2) "Political and social movement founded in the early 1980s seeking to transform Lebanon into an Islamic state." The Oxford Dictionary of Islam; 3) "an extremist Shiite Muslim group." Oxford Dictionary of English (3 ed.); 4) "a radical group in the Lebanon." The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions; 5) "Islamic fundamentalist group" World Encyclopedia, Philip's
I would say "probably", depending on whether "radical" is considered interchangeable with "extremist". Eperoton (talk) 01:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All I have to go on, without launching a massive search and study review, is the Hezbollah article itself. It appears that sources there are more thorough. But again, this is not an area I claim any expertise in. I merely reverted to head off an edit war, which would do no one any good. Jusdafax 01:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The main article of Hezbollah, as pointed out before, is quality rated; hence the sources there wont be too bad. I found an entry in the "Encyclopedia of Modern Worldwide Extremists and Extremist Groups" by Stephen E. Atkins from 2004. It qualifies it as the "leading shi'ite terrorist organization" in the country.--Joobo (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Eperoton: Islamic radicalism is Islamic fundamentalism. It is defined as "a movement of Muslims who think back to earlier times and seek to return to the fundamentals of the religion[1] and live similarly to how the prophet Muhammad and his companions lived". This term can't even be applied to Shiite groups since such an idea makes no sense in Shia Islam at all and Hezbollah is even not mentioned in that article. Those Oxford sources are unfortunately written by some illiterate authors (this always happens when you use sources that are not written by experts). Hezbollah is now a legal political party in Lebanon, it is part of Lebanon's government, its representatives are democratically elected, and it does not seek to implement Sharia laws in Lebanon as stated by its leaders (so listing Hezbollah in this article is in contradiction with the led of the article). If you insist on including Hezbollah in such lists, probably you could include it in Islamic terrorism because of some alleged assassinations conducted by the organization (and apparently it is already listed there), but Hezbollah does not belong to this article.
@Jusdafax and Joobo: Exactly in what ways the Hezbollah article is enough, while the word "extremist" is not even mentioned in that article? Joobo, don't misrepresent that article, if Hezbollah is a quality article, then look at its first line, which introduces the organization as "a Shi'a Islamist militant group", based on this source, which is misused here as I said before. And "Stephen E. Atkins" is a librarian, Google his name, he isn't a qualified person. I still see no reliable source here, but a fake and misrepresented source. 46.167.150.71 (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm no expert, don't know who the experts are, don't know what qualifies one person as an expert and another as a layman, and don't want to have that long discussion. But since you keep pinging me, because I reverted and said you should discuss it here in the face of several other reverts, I will respond that in my world of common sense, it all depends on what you consider "extreme" - how about the Hezbollah flag? Jusdafax 21:18, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The question we need to decide per WP policy isn't whether Hezbollah is or isn't extremist, but rather whether the term reflects the usage found in RSs and WP consensus, if one exists. Furthermore, "extremist", "radical" and "fundamentalist" aren't technical terms with commonly accepted definitions. Academic WP:TERTIARY sources like Oxford reference works are a good way of gauging WP:NPOV. I personally don't have a definite opinion one way or another; just trying to help anchor this discussion in RSs and policies. Eperoton (talk) 01:33, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite

[edit]

I've removed a lot of text from this article; I'll try to explain why. First, this article has been a mess for quite some time, evidenced by the neutrality dispute, the non-world POV and the lack of clearness in the lead section. Secondly, this term is clearly an umbrella term which can and is used for a variety of different movements and beliefs, writing a single article about it would be impossible. I have therefore removed the large amount of British court POV (which, while interesting, adds little to the article) and the terrorist groups which were already covered under Islamic terrorism. Also, the section about the Khawarij made no sense to me at all. The article now is simply a buffed up disambiguation page, which, I believe, is the best way to go for an ambiguous term like 'Islamic extremism'. AKAKIOS (talk) 08:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AKAKIOS: You basically gutted the article. If there is a definition by a notable legal body, it should be mentioned. Reducing the article to a stub/disamb is not the way to go. If you object to parts of it, tag the article appropriately, or be bold and remove that section. Kleuske (talk) 09:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I may even agree with you on the Khawarij-bit. Kleuske (talk) 09:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Information not applicable to the article or already present elsewhere was removed. If believe that this information should be present in this article, you should provide arguments as to why you think this. You claim for instance that there is a "definition by a notable legal body", but provide no arguments for its notability or authority. It quite clear from the source material, that definitions vary greatly and range from vague to quite precise. However, a 10 point rationale by a single British judge in a case concerning a libel case involving a single person should not be considered adequate source material. I even doubt if such writings would qualify as a source at all for the matter at hand. So, with that in mind and the various and numerous tags, some of which have been part of this article for years have led me to remove much of the superfluous information. Information which, as I stated before, is already present in other articles such as Islamic terrorism, Jihadism and Islamism which are much better sourced and have a much clearer subject. I urge you to provide sources and rationals for your reinstation of the removed information. It is not my task to say why it should go, it is yours to prove why it should stay. AKAKIOS (talk) 12:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@AKAKIOS: I would have thought the verdict by the High Court shows notability and If that did not suffice, the presence of two reliable sources did. I also note you are verging towards WP:OWN and are currently at WP:3RR. Please read WP:BRD, as it is relevant in this case. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 12:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Its notability is either with the person who lost that trial, Shakeel Begg (whose article is a total mess, and has a mere 4 interwiki links) or as a source to the much more substantiated claim that opinions (which is the opening of the verdict, "In my opinion") differ on the definition of Islamic extremism. This is what the revised article does; it makes clear that definitions vary and links to several (better written, more precise) articles that specify the use of this proven umbrella term. I see no justification whatsoever, why this legal rationale by a British judge concerning a person of minute importance should be given so much undue weight. I also oppose it on the grounds that it makes this article self contradictory as it clearly and well sourced states that the definition varies, but then goes on to make a quite precise 10 point definition. AKAKIOS (talk) 12:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sources! Wikipedia is intended to neutrally summarize the sources and a opnion by a high court isn't just an opinion. I am for improving the article, I am against gutting it, removing properly sourced, relevant information and reducing the article to a stub annex disamb page. Kleuske (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Islamic extremism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article is very UK-centric

[edit]

Most of the definitions of islamic extremism are based on UK law. I think the article should have more information from sources outside of the UK (USA, UN, etc.). However, i don't believe the UK sources should be removed outright, as that would make the article even more stripped down than it is right now (as made so by some previous edits) Why can't i get a cow (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Islamic_extremism&oldid=1252603381"