Talk:Jihad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Kashmir is not a country...[edit]

The section on Azzam has the following sentence: Azzam saw Afghanistan as the beginning of jihad to repel unbelievers from many countries—the southern Soviet Republics of Central Asia, Bosnia, the Philippines, Kashmir, Somalia, Eritrea, Spain, and especially his home country of Palestine.[120] Out of these: Soviet Republics of Central Asia, Bosnia, the Philippines, Somalia, Eritrea, Spain, and Palestine - all these are countries, barring Kashmir.
This sentence looks like England, France, Germany, Spain and Utah!
Not expected from wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.196.18.74 (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Its not a country but respective state

Salamo cool (talk) 03:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not a country. Ziyaurr (talk) Ziyaurr (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Lead rewrite[edit]

The lead has serious problems, both before and after the latest edit. The first sentence arbitrarily pushes a particular intepretation of the term, contrary to the broader range of meanings discussed in the article, and is moreover unsourced. The rest of lead gives undue weight to views of certain authors, in particular the reliable but non-prominent source by Diane Morgan and some web links of unclear reliability and/or notability. There's also a mysterious unsourced reference to a "Dictionary of Islam". I'm proposing to rewrite its first two paragraphs based on how academic encyclopedias treat the subject in the opening of their entries on jihad, keeping the opinions of Lewis and Ghamidi in the lead, but putting them in refs alongside the views expressed in the encyclopedias for due weight. Below are some excerpts I've collected, arranged roughly according to my estimate of their academic prominence, from highest to lowest. Several major encyclopedias with different editors have commissioned Rudolph Peters to write the entry, and the opening paragraphs are identical in three of them (even though he co-authored one of them with David Cook, whose polemic against greater jihad "apologists" is prominently featured in our "Debate" section). I'll abridge some passages not directly relevant here.

 Connoting an endeavor toward a praiseworthy aim, the word jihād bears many shades of meaning in the Islamic context. It may express a struggle against one's evil inclinations or an exertion for the sake of Islam and the ummah (Islamic community), for example, in trying to convert unbelievers or working for the moral betterment of Islamic society (“jihād of the tongue” and “jihād of the pen”). In books on Islamic law and commonly in the Qurʿān, the word means an armed struggle against the unbelievers. Sometimes the “jihād of the sword” is called “the lesser jihād,” in opposition to the peaceful forms named “the greater jihād.” Often used today without religious connotation, its meaning is roughly equivalent to the English word crusade (“a crusade against drugs”). Either “Islamic” or “holy” is currently added to the word when it is used in a religious context (al-jihād al-Islāmī or al-jihād al-muqaddas). The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World, The Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam and Politics, The Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam and Women
 DJIHAD etymologically signifies an effort directed towards a determined objective. (Cf. [...] mujahada or, again, djihad: an effort directed upon oneself for the attainment of moral and religious perfection. Certain writers, particularly among those of Shiite persuasion, qualify this djihad as "spiritual djihad" and as "the greater djihad", in opposition to the djihad which is our present concern and which is called "physical djihad" or "the lesser djihad". It is, however, very much more usual for the term djihad to denote this latter form of "effort"). In law, according to general doctrine and in historical tradition, the djihad consists of military action with the object of the expansion of Islam and, if need be, of its defence. Encyclopedia of Islam 2nd ed, Brill
 

The entry in the Oxford dictionary of Islam is freely available here

 JIHA¯D is the verbal noun of the Arabic verb jahada, meaning “to endeavor, to strive, to struggle.” It is generally used to denote an effort toward a commendable aim. In religious contexts it can mean the struggle against one’s evil inclinations or efforts toward the moral uplift of society or toward the spread of Islam. This last undertaking can be peaceful (“jiha¯d of the tongue” or “jiha¯d of the pen”), in accordance with [Quranic quotations]. In pious and mystical circles spiritual and moral jihadis emphasized. This they call “greater jiha¯d” on the strength of the following tradition (h: ad¯ıth) of the prophet Muhammad [quoted hadith]. Encyclopedia of Religion, MacMillan Reference USA, v. 7, p. 4917
 The Arabic term jihad is properly defined as “struggle” or “striving” and is generally described as taking place at two levels: the inner (or greater) and the outer (or lesser). According to the hadith (records of the sayings and deeds of the Prophet Muhammad), inner jihad is the struggle within oneself to avoid sinful behavior and live according to the principles of the Qurʾan, Sunna (example of the Prophet Muhammad), and Sharia (Islamic law). Outer jihad, on the other hand, refers to the defense of the Muslim community under attack. This can be a “soft defense,” such as through verbal or written debate or persuasion (jihad of the tongue, or jihad of the pen), or “hard defense” (also known as “jihad of the sword”), such as through physical or military defense of a community. Oxford Bibliographies
 Literally meaning “struggle,” jihad may be associated with almost any activity by  which Muslims attempt to bring personal and social life into a pattern of  conformity with the guidance of God. Nevertheless, early in the development of  Islam, jihad came to be associated particularly with fighting or making war “in the  path of God.” In thinking about jihad, then, we may learn a great deal through a  focus on war. Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought
 The word jihad is derived from the Arabic root jahada, meaning “to strive” or “to exert oneself” toward some goal. In this general sense, jihad could mean striving to achieve something with no particular moral value, or even a negative value. The Qur�an itself twice uses the verb when describing the efforts of pagan parents to induce their Muslim-convert children to return to polytheism (29:8, 31:15). Other occurrences of this verbal form and its derivatives, however, are limited to the struggle of the Muslims to attain and maintain their faith. Thus, jihad has come to mean in the Islamic context only a virtuous struggle, toward some praiseworthy end, as defined by religion. It is therefore often linked with the phrase fi sabil Allah, meaning “struggle in the path of God.” Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim world, MacMillan Reference USA
 A term that derives from the Arabic word jahada, meaning “to strive.” The Arabic nouns juhd, mujahid, jihad, and ijtihad mean endeavor, training, exertion, effort, diligence, and fighting. “Traditionally jihad was understood to be justified for three reasons: to repel invasion or its threat, to punish those who had violated treaties, and to guarantee freedom for the propagation of Islam” (Abedi). The Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa (2nd Edition), MacMillan Reference USA
 Literally, the Arabic word jihad means to strive or struggle (in the path of God); it often refers to religiously sanctioned warfare. Encyclopedia of Islam, Infobase

In light of this, I'm planning to reflect the following aspects of these sources:

  1. The opening statement should not arbitrarily restrict the meaning of the term
  2. The difference in emphasis on militaristic vs. non-militaristic interpretations should be reflected
  3. For militaristic interpretation, the difference of emphasis on the expansionist vs defensive interpretations should be reflected

Thoughts? Eperoton (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

This lead is pretty shocking, actually. It is not NPOV at all. To be exact, it is erroneous. The word Jihad has a far wider meaning than what the lead says. In a way, it sets up the reader to have a narrow view of the subject before actually treating it. Nowhere man (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nowhere man (talkcontribs) 21:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC) 
After reading a couple more books to get a firmer grasp of NPOV, I'm finally going ahead with the lead rewrite based on the sampling of encyclopedias quoted above and other sources. I'm removing the third paragraph of the current lead, which expounds some unsourced and rather confused connections. Eperoton (talk) 05:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

please add just before "In sufi and..." -- from es.wikipedia's article[edit]

The British-American Orientalist Bernard Lewis argues that in the hadiths and in the classic manuals of Islamic Jurisprudence, jihad has military significance in most cases.[1]

The source is very well-recognized, unbiased by recent events, and has been a fair critic (e.g. sometimes against Israel or The West's overreach into internal affairs of Muslim nations, not purely unflattering toward Islam).

The Spanish wikipedia article also has many more great sources, such as Ibn Khaldun. 97.98.86.66 (talk) 03:11, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

We already have statements to that effect, both in the opening paragraph and later in the lead, the latter using the same ref you give. It's not attributed since Lewis is not the only one who argues that. Eperoton (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Bernard Lewis, The Political Language of Islam (University of Chicago Press, 1988), p. 72. Cf. William M. Watt, Islamic Conceptions of the Holy War in: Thomas P. Murphy, The Holy War (Ohio State University Press, 1974), p. 143

Lead image[edit]

@Music314812813478: You seem to be unfamiliar with WP:NPOV according to which we must "treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject". The lead is written to cover different aspects of jihad with proportional weight that reflects their treatment in the cited sources. Adding the beheading picture places undue emphasis on a particular incident and particular aspect of its history, and it violates NPOV in both these respects. Eperoton (talk) 23:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, absolutely not. The picture only refers to classical Islamic law, and there is no dispite that that is what classical Islamic law teaches- and classical Islamic law, which is in the quran and is thousands of years old, is much more notable than modernist arguments, so I am not giving "undue emphasis" right here. Even within modern Islamic schools, there may be a lesser jihad and a greater jihad, but there is no dispute between them, as both are accepted.Music314812813478 (talk) 00:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Return to "Jihad" page.
Firstly, please don't reintroduce a disputed addition without consensus. This violates WP policy. Per WP:ONUS, the onus to get consensus for it is on you, and per WP:STATUSQUO it should not be reinstated without consensus.
With regard to the image, its placement should reflect its prominence in RSs, not your opinion on the subject. There's a dozen of standard references cited in the lead. Which one gives prominence to this incident? What is its special significance in Islamic law? Given the apparent confusion between Quran, hadith and Islamic law in your comment, I doubt you've read even one of the cited sources. Perhaps your are advancing your own WP:OR on this image, but it rather appears that you simply want to insert a particularly inflammatory image into the lead, as FreeKnowledgeCreator has suggested, in order to highlight a link between jihad and terrorism, beheading, etc. That is entirely inconsistent with NPOV. Eperoton (talk) 02:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Lead image @Music314812813478: You seem to be unfamiliar with WP:NPOV according to which we must "treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject". The lead is written to cover different aspects of jihad with proportional weight that reflects their treatment in the cited sources. Adding the beheading picture places undue emphasis on a particular incident and particular aspect of its history, and it violates NPOV in both these respects. Eperoton (talk) 23:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

It emphasizes the reliable source that talks about classical Islamic law. And I have read the sources. What are you even rambling on about? As I said, there is no dispute that classical Islamic law teaches Muslims to wagr war against unbelievers. Even among modernist Islamic schools of thought, lesser jihad is universally accepted. And I am not trying to push POV, I just wan tto emphasoze classical Islamic law. Accusing me of "bigoted original research" will not help.Music314812813478 (talk) 02:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I most certainly did not confuse any of them, I just said Islamic law derives from the quran.Music314812813478 (talk) 02:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Found a sourceMusic314812813478 (talk) 03:45, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Please add your comments to the bottom of the appropriate section. You still haven't provided sources that demonstrate a special significance of the beheading incident to Islamic law or anything else. The page you cited in Cook's book doesn't even mention it. As for your other addition, it is simply WP:UNDUE. Fishing out a brief remark from a book on another subject in order to change text that is sourced to multiple standard references on the relevant subject is a hallmark of non-NPOV-compliant editing. More generally, as you yourself admit, you are aiming to emphasize one aspect of the subject, and that in itself constitutes a NPOV violation. A neutral image representing some canonical episode of early jihad may be added to the appropriate section (in fact, it should and I'll do that myself), but the lead should reflect RSs proportionally, as it already does, and not highlight one aspect at the expense of others. Eperoton (talk) 00:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
@Eperoton: Mobile is broken, I cannot edit any of the sections (only the case for this article for some reason, please help)
Well, I actually did the same thing as you did, and the picture I chose actually depicts a scene from the same battle. The only difference in our edits is that I put it in the lead. Would putting in "In classical Islamic law, jihad refers to struggle against unbelievers" in the picture description help?Music314812813478 (talk) 01:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
And you still have not addressed my point that classical Islamic law is much more notable than modernist argumentsMusic314812813478 (talk) 02:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
The image you picked doesn't depict the battle; it depicts an execution that was carried out in its aftermath, according to some sources, and introduces spurious associations with ISIS et al. This article simply doesn't need an image in the lead. There's no canonical visual representation of jihad, and whichever of the hundreds possible images one may pick will reflect an arbitrary editorial choice and thereby compromise an NPOV source-based presentation of the different aspects of the subject. Having only the template in the lead has been the consensus choice for a long time.
Sorry, I can't help with your technical issue. No one else seems to be having it, so there may be something wrong with your device. You don't have to click on a section edit link -- just scroll down to the appropriate place on the page. Eperoton (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

@Eperoton:

It only allows you to edit the lead.

As for associations with Isis, let me tell you this:

It also associates Middle Eastern law. Qatar and other countries permit beheading of criminals, and Saudi Arabia beheads criminals regularly. You saying yhat it ha sIsis connotations isjust you taking my edit in bad faith.

Perhaps I will choose another picture, but I will still put it in the lead. Yes, there is a greater jihad, but according to sources it is less prevalent across Islamic schools of thouqght than lesser jihad, so there is no undue weight . It is only sensical to use an image of early jihad for the lead image.Music314812813478 (talk) 02:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Death penalty and jihad belong to different areas of Islamic law. I have no objection to your new image in itself (in fact, it's a better choice than the one I picked, since the participation of angels figures more prominently in discussions of this battle than individual scenes of combat), but it's not a canonical representation of jihad, and so I remain convinced that the lead of this article should reflect RSs through text and not editorialize through image selection. If you'd like to continue this dispute, you should escalate WP:DR by posting to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam or opening an WP:RFC asking whether this image should be featured in the lead. Please post a draft RFC question here beforehand, so we can both review its phrasing. Thanks. Eperoton (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
@Eperoton:
Let us not take too much time in this discussion.
Choice of image is not editorialising, according to WP:Editorialize. You are applying Wikipedia policies where they do not apply. According to sources, warfare IS the more common meaning, so there is no undue weight here. If you want me to take you seriously, address the point that warfare is the usual among the many shades of jihad.Music314812813478 (talk) 01:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
WP:Original research only applies to article sentences, and NOT images. Please stop with this nonesense that choosing an image is somehow slanting the article. Why does the fact that sources say that there is no dispute between lesser jihad and greater jihad escape you?Music314812813478 (talk) 01:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, you put a similar image in the hadith section, and if such images are viable to be put here, then it is valid to put it in the lead. Adress all my points, and don' t bring up WP:Editorialise or any similar rules because they do not apply here.Music314812813478 (talk) 01:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
And do not try to posit that lesser jihad and greater jihad are equally prevalent, because they are not accorsing to sources. Choosing images according to what sources say is NOT original research, so please do not bring it up or else your point won' t be valid.Music314812813478 (talk) 01:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
WP:CONSENSUS is definitely a policy, which you are violating by refusing to follow WP:DR and reinserting images without consensus. As I already wrote before, there is no canonical representation of jihad, and so the lead is better left without an image, as it has been for many years. Certainly, I'm not aware of anything in RSs on this subject to suggest that a general overview of jihad should emphasize a visual representation, whatever that may be. I will make a step that you should be making yourself per WP:ONUS by soliciting further input on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam. Eperoton (talk) 22:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
The use of this image (or any image) in the infobox is redundant. The purpose of infoboxes is to provide an 'at a glance' overview of the article. Aside from a plethora of policies and guidelines I could invoke, a single, unilaterally selected image does not meet with WP:PERTINENCE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)