Talk:Boko Haram/Archive 1

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)

This line: 'That changed in 2009 when the Nigerian government launched an investigation into the group's activities following reports that its members were arming themselves.' is in no way supported by the referenced article. In fact, it seems to do the opposite.79.244.85.96 (talk) 10:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, that last comment was mine. Wasn't logged in.Joe.bav (talk) 10:46, 9 March 2012 (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)

The German Wikipedia article has had the same trouble with translating. The solution we found there is to translate the official name as

Arabic: جماعة أهل السنة للدعوة والجهاد (ǧamāʿa ahl as-sunna li-d-daʿwa wa-l-ǧihād)‎, literally: Association of the Sunnis for the Invitation to Islam and for Jihad

— Translation by Micge (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC), from German Wikipedia

That has the benefit of resolving the "holly war"-is-the-wrong-word-conflict - translating the word is unnecessary as most people recognise the word "Jihad". Additionally, linking the concepts helps to correlate them to the phonetically similar words in the transliteration. "People of the Tradition" does not strike the average reader as a synonym for Sunni, so why not stay with the original?

For the common name "Boko Haram", there are some variants given, starting with the most common and finishing with the more exotic translations:

Boko Haram (Hausa for „Books set in latin script are a sin“, „Western education is forbidden“, „Modern education is a sin“ all the way to „False pretenses are a shame“)

— Translation by Micge (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC), from German Wikipedia

Maybe a similar approach would be helpful here? Especially as the article on the Boko alphabet notes that Boko can stand for secularism, a linking of the concept Boko as in "Books set in latin script are a sin" would be helpful - maybe the translation variants secularism is a sin and/or Western education is forbidden could be added as well, referencing the article on the Boko alphabet. Sadly, some of those sources are in German, including the best source which gives a long discussion of the problem of translating "Boko Haram"; moreover, I can not vouch for accurate translations being done by German news-outlets. -- Micge (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2013 (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)

"...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)

The reference for suicide is a BBC link that presents the idealized western view of the Quran and fails to highlight the nuance between suicide fighting for a cause and a personal one from e.g. depression or mental illness or similar. Christianity has proscriptions against suicide but venerates those that sacrifice themselves for a cause. These suicides are for a cause of promoting Islam and so the BBC link used to support the criticism is very poor. What is needed is notable people reported in reliable sources not that suicide per se is un-Islamic but that the suicides of this lot are un-Islamic. Until that time what we have is just synthesis that is not neutral of this group. Fromthehill (talk) 07:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You are confusing the terms suicide and self-sacrifice. And what Boko Haram are doing is not self-sacrifice they are indiscriminantly killing people and this is a sign of some kind of mental illness. Therefore what they are doing (killing themselves) is anti-Islamic.

If Andres Brevik - a white man, Christian and European - can be called a political extremist (not a Chrisitan terrorist) and schizophrenic (not murderer), I wonder, why it is biased to call a group of madmen terrorists and anti-Islamic when nothing they do is even close being Islamic.

Sin un nomine (talk) 09:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is Andres Brevik relevant here ? This is about Boko Haram. They are both self-described as Islamic and we have reliable sources that say they are Islamic. Just find someone notable and reliable that says they are not. Fromthehill (talk) 11:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I mentioned Andres Brevik because there is an analogy here. US forces kill civilians and you call it collateral damage but if the Russians or the Chinese do the same it becomes killing of the innocent civilians. I'm not siding with the Russian or any terrorist group. Manchuria was a puppet regime, Eastern European states were puppets of the USSR but Egypt under Hosni Mubarak wasn't a puppet regime. Neither is Saudi Arabia now. I hope you are getting my point. I'm only trying to say there shouldn't be double standards.

May I know what those reliable sources are and what they say?

They self-describe themselves as "Muslims"! Ha ha ha ! If only I could self-describe myself as a university professor. You would then call me a fool and not a professor. Why shouldn't we do the same to Boko Haram? They call themselves Islamic but their actions (suicide, killing of the innocent and anti-education) clearly show they aren't Islamic.

But who are you as an authority to say they aren't Muslim? Are you a theologian? All Muslims do unislamic things just because they're not on par with your worldview doesn't mean you can strip them of their titles. I believe none of us are writing from Nigeria so we're hearing what they do from second hand sources most of the time. I take wikipedia as a more unbias source of information than most sites as it respects the views of everyone involved, so lets keep it that way. I know that a lot of people say to themselves "well they don't represent Islam so, lets do this to differentiate" but thats not our job, I am a Muslim, a sunni Muslim but do I go on Iran's page and edit it to describe how they're not really Muslim because they don't fit my view of a Muslim or because I don't like them? What's the difference? I think my edits are more fair, "Criticism" allows for opponents of authority like scholars or Nigerian politicians to be cited rather than your average Wikipedia that simplifies something like "Boko Haram is against education but Islam is for education, so HA! Checkmate!" I'm sure the intentions are good but the execution is poor, I see this with all radical Islamic groups of Wikipedia, I think we should try to curb some of this and keep it objective, these days wikipedia is the primary source for general knowledge gaining for internet users. Let's not sour it with bias. Muwwahid (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

And when I cited sources SEB removed them saying they were "off topic."

Sin un nomine (talk) 12:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

because you are engaging in some heavy WP:SYNTH and WP:OR here. It doesn't matter what you think or anyone else thinks. Do not quote general statements about Islam or what Islam is or isn't. It doesn't belong here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Coordinating efforts

The quote on the page is that "A US commander stated that Boko Haram is likely linked to AQIM (al-Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb)". I have added al-Shabaab due to some media sources reporting on General Ham's comments. Bloomberg reported "Three African terrorist groups are seeking to “coordinate and synchronize” their operations, the head of the U.S. military’s Africa Command said. Army General Carter Ham said al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, al-Shabaab in Somalia, and Boko Haram in Nigeria are increasingly trying to work together on the African continent." The Mail & Guardian reports: "General Carter Ham, head of the US military's Africa Command, said there were signs that Boko Haram in Nigeria, al-Shabab in Somalia and al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb were sharing money and explosive materials and training fighters together." The Digital Journal reports: US Africa Command's top military official has said there is a threat of Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, Al Shabaab and Boko Haram linking up. According to Army General Carter F. Ham, there is evidence that the three groups are combining efforts." They are all "linked", as the page reports, through their desire to "coordinate and synchronize efforts." I am unsure, but is the confusion coming from the BBC article mainly focusing on AQIM and Boko Haram? That was the originally-added article and it doesn't go into the cooperation and General Ham's comments like the others. Dreambeaver(talk) 22:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

'Seeking to coordinate' is admitting that there is no link yet. General Ham does not reveal the nature of the 'signs' he sees, but 'signs' is much weaker then prove, even weaker then indications. To my knowledge there is no first hand source, other then 'signs' seen and recycled by the security establishement, for such links. The three guys accused of bombing the UN-compound in Abuja have not yet been independently confirmed either that they are connected to Boko Haram, (in spite of frantic searching by journalists and massive web logging) or that they were indeed trained by Al Shabaab. Also, Boko Haram's offical website did NOT claim the UN-bombing. Those two guys who did claim, contradicted each other and could neither be connected to Boko Haram. So there is not evidence that Boko Haram is involved in this.

To my understanding, Boko Haram have huge religious-ideological differences with both Aqim and Al Shabaab. See hereunder.Pieter Felix Smit (talk) 20:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Throw out 'Strategy and recruiting' section?

The strategy and recruiting section is based on a dead link into a Nigerian newspaper of obviously dubious quality. The claims in this section seem to be based on unfounded fears rather then on any information. If there was any reliable source, or even likelyhood of truth, it would have been cited all over the world. Throw out the section? Pieter Felix Smit (talk) 14:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

This is something that should be of interest, and if there are no credible sources, I agree that we should get rid of it. It would be interesting to look in to and I'll see if I can come up with any sources. In addition, all of these sections at the end (Assessment, Strategy and recruiting, Funding, Death of Abu Qaqa) can probably be condensed as subsections of a more open heading. I think it should be something that covers "Operations", but there's a more elegant or appropriate way to put that.Dreambeaver(talk) 00:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Throw out the funding section?

The first two sentences of the funding section are based on a story on All African that is based on unnamed sources in Nigeria's security aparatus. The story claims that the arrested person was trained by Abu Umar Al-Wadud, the 'leader of Al Shabaab in Somalia'. Al Shabaab has no such leader. AQIM (5 countries to the left) has one senior religious leader with such a name, but he certainly is not in any function to train angry boys in bomb making skills. It shows the whole information is a cock up. Unless we get a more believeworthy source, we throw out the two sentences? Pieter Felix Smit (talk) 14:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The AllAfrica reference is from the Cameroon Tribune, which is the country's major newspaper. Some of the African news sources are tough to deal with, but it seems important that we try to understand the meaning behind some of these reputable sources that mean well. Because this was reported in a few sources and was not doubted or retracted, we should keep it in. I wouldn't object to clarifying the sentence and attributing this to who said it and where it was reported, maybe helping to make it clearer. Dreambeaver(talk) 00:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Need to add

Important battle with many deaths. Nigeria claims one and doesn't allow others in just as when the group came to light. It could lead again to future conflagarations(Lihaas (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)).

Anyone know which locations Boko Haram controls?

President Jonathan's recent declaration of emergency stated that "Already, some northern parts of Borno state have been taken over by groups whose allegiance is to different flags and ideologies...In many places, they have destroyed the Nigerian flag and other symbols of state authority and in their place, hoisted strange flags suggesting the exercise of alternative sovereignty." [1] Has anyone seen any information on which specific localities have been taken over? As a Wikipedia reader I would love to see this information reflected in the article. GeoEvan (talk) 09:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

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)

This line: 'That changed in 2009 when the Nigerian government launched an investigation into the group's activities following reports that its members were arming themselves.' is in no way supported by the referenced article. In fact, it seems to do the opposite.79.244.85.96 (talk) 10:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, that last comment was mine. Wasn't logged in.Joe.bav (talk) 10:46, 9 March 2012 (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)

The German Wikipedia article has had the same trouble with translating. The solution we found there is to translate the official name as

Arabic: جماعة أهل السنة للدعوة والجهاد (ǧamāʿa ahl as-sunna li-d-daʿwa wa-l-ǧihād)‎, literally: Association of the Sunnis for the Invitation to Islam and for Jihad

— Translation by Micge (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC), from German Wikipedia

That has the benefit of resolving the "holly war"-is-the-wrong-word-conflict - translating the word is unnecessary as most people recognise the word "Jihad". Additionally, linking the concepts helps to correlate them to the phonetically similar words in the transliteration. "People of the Tradition" does not strike the average reader as a synonym for Sunni, so why not stay with the original?

For the common name "Boko Haram", there are some variants given, starting with the most common and finishing with the more exotic translations:

Boko Haram (Hausa for „Books set in latin script are a sin“, „Western education is forbidden“, „Modern education is a sin“ all the way to „False pretenses are a shame“)

— Translation by Micge (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC), from German Wikipedia

Maybe a similar approach would be helpful here? Especially as the article on the Boko alphabet notes that Boko can stand for secularism, a linking of the concept Boko as in "Books set in latin script are a sin" would be helpful - maybe the translation variants secularism is a sin and/or Western education is forbidden could be added as well, referencing the article on the Boko alphabet. Sadly, some of those sources are in German, including the best source which gives a long discussion of the problem of translating "Boko Haram"; moreover, I can not vouch for accurate translations being done by German news-outlets. -- Micge (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2013 (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)

"...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)

The reference for suicide is a BBC link that presents the idealized western view of the Quran and fails to highlight the nuance between suicide fighting for a cause and a personal one from e.g. depression or mental illness or similar. Christianity has proscriptions against suicide but venerates those that sacrifice themselves for a cause. These suicides are for a cause of promoting Islam and so the BBC link used to support the criticism is very poor. What is needed is notable people reported in reliable sources not that suicide per se is un-Islamic but that the suicides of this lot are un-Islamic. Until that time what we have is just synthesis that is not neutral of this group. Fromthehill (talk) 07:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You are confusing the terms suicide and self-sacrifice. And what Boko Haram are doing is not self-sacrifice they are indiscriminantly killing people and this is a sign of some kind of mental illness. Therefore what they are doing (killing themselves) is anti-Islamic.

If Andres Brevik - a white man, Christian and European - can be called a political extremist (not a Chrisitan terrorist) and schizophrenic (not murderer), I wonder, why it is biased to call a group of madmen terrorists and anti-Islamic when nothing they do is even close being Islamic.

Sin un nomine (talk) 09:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is Andres Brevik relevant here ? This is about Boko Haram. They are both self-described as Islamic and we have reliable sources that say they are Islamic. Just find someone notable and reliable that says they are not. Fromthehill (talk) 11:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I mentioned Andres Brevik because there is an analogy here. US forces kill civilians and you call it collateral damage but if the Russians or the Chinese do the same it becomes killing of the innocent civilians. I'm not siding with the Russian or any terrorist group. Manchuria was a puppet regime, Eastern European states were puppets of the USSR but Egypt under Hosni Mubarak wasn't a puppet regime. Neither is Saudi Arabia now. I hope you are getting my point. I'm only trying to say there shouldn't be double standards.

May I know what those reliable sources are and what they say?

They self-describe themselves as "Muslims"! Ha ha ha ! If only I could self-describe myself as a university professor. You would then call me a fool and not a professor. Why shouldn't we do the same to Boko Haram? They call themselves Islamic but their actions (suicide, killing of the innocent and anti-education) clearly show they aren't Islamic.

But who are you as an authority to say they aren't Muslim? Are you a theologian? All Muslims do unislamic things just because they're not on par with your worldview doesn't mean you can strip them of their titles. I believe none of us are writing from Nigeria so we're hearing what they do from second hand sources most of the time. I take wikipedia as a more unbias source of information than most sites as it respects the views of everyone involved, so lets keep it that way. I know that a lot of people say to themselves "well they don't represent Islam so, lets do this to differentiate" but thats not our job, I am a Muslim, a sunni Muslim but do I go on Iran's page and edit it to describe how they're not really Muslim because they don't fit my view of a Muslim or because I don't like them? What's the difference? I think my edits are more fair, "Criticism" allows for opponents of authority like scholars or Nigerian politicians to be cited rather than your average Wikipedia that simplifies something like "Boko Haram is against education but Islam is for education, so HA! Checkmate!" I'm sure the intentions are good but the execution is poor, I see this with all radical Islamic groups of Wikipedia, I think we should try to curb some of this and keep it objective, these days wikipedia is the primary source for general knowledge gaining for internet users. Let's not sour it with bias. Muwwahid (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

And when I cited sources SEB removed them saying they were "off topic."

Sin un nomine (talk) 12:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

because you are engaging in some heavy WP:SYNTH and WP:OR here. It doesn't matter what you think or anyone else thinks. Do not quote general statements about Islam or what Islam is or isn't. It doesn't belong here. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Coordinating efforts

The quote on the page is that "A US commander stated that Boko Haram is likely linked to AQIM (al-Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb)". I have added al-Shabaab due to some media sources reporting on General Ham's comments. Bloomberg reported "Three African terrorist groups are seeking to “coordinate and synchronize” their operations, the head of the U.S. military’s Africa Command said. Army General Carter Ham said al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, al-Shabaab in Somalia, and Boko Haram in Nigeria are increasingly trying to work together on the African continent." The Mail & Guardian reports: "General Carter Ham, head of the US military's Africa Command, said there were signs that Boko Haram in Nigeria, al-Shabab in Somalia and al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb were sharing money and explosive materials and training fighters together." The Digital Journal reports: US Africa Command's top military official has said there is a threat of Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, Al Shabaab and Boko Haram linking up. According to Army General Carter F. Ham, there is evidence that the three groups are combining efforts." They are all "linked", as the page reports, through their desire to "coordinate and synchronize efforts." I am unsure, but is the confusion coming from the BBC article mainly focusing on AQIM and Boko Haram? That was the originally-added article and it doesn't go into the cooperation and General Ham's comments like the others. Dreambeaver(talk) 22:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

'Seeking to coordinate' is admitting that there is no link yet. General Ham does not reveal the nature of the 'signs' he sees, but 'signs' is much weaker then prove, even weaker then indications. To my knowledge there is no first hand source, other then 'signs' seen and recycled by the security establishement, for such links. The three guys accused of bombing the UN-compound in Abuja have not yet been independently confirmed either that they are connected to Boko Haram, (in spite of frantic searching by journalists and massive web logging) or that they were indeed trained by Al Shabaab. Also, Boko Haram's offical website did NOT claim the UN-bombing. Those two guys who did claim, contradicted each other and could neither be connected to Boko Haram. So there is not evidence that Boko Haram is involved in this.

To my understanding, Boko Haram have huge religious-ideological differences with both Aqim and Al Shabaab. See hereunder.Pieter Felix Smit (talk) 20:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Throw out 'Strategy and recruiting' section?

The strategy and recruiting section is based on a dead link into a Nigerian newspaper of obviously dubious quality. The claims in this section seem to be based on unfounded fears rather then on any information. If there was any reliable source, or even likelyhood of truth, it would have been cited all over the world. Throw out the section? Pieter Felix Smit (talk) 14:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

This is something that should be of interest, and if there are no credible sources, I agree that we should get rid of it. It would be interesting to look in to and I'll see if I can come up with any sources. In addition, all of these sections at the end (Assessment, Strategy and recruiting, Funding, Death of Abu Qaqa) can probably be condensed as subsections of a more open heading. I think it should be something that covers "Operations", but there's a more elegant or appropriate way to put that.Dreambeaver(talk) 00:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Throw out the funding section?

The first two sentences of the funding section are based on a story on All African that is based on unnamed sources in Nigeria's security aparatus. The story claims that the arrested person was trained by Abu Umar Al-Wadud, the 'leader of Al Shabaab in Somalia'. Al Shabaab has no such leader. AQIM (5 countries to the left) has one senior religious leader with such a name, but he certainly is not in any function to train angry boys in bomb making skills. It shows the whole information is a cock up. Unless we get a more believeworthy source, we throw out the two sentences? Pieter Felix Smit (talk) 14:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The AllAfrica reference is from the Cameroon Tribune, which is the country's major newspaper. Some of the African news sources are tough to deal with, but it seems important that we try to understand the meaning behind some of these reputable sources that mean well. Because this was reported in a few sources and was not doubted or retracted, we should keep it in. I wouldn't object to clarifying the sentence and attributing this to who said it and where it was reported, maybe helping to make it clearer. Dreambeaver(talk) 00:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Need to add

Important battle with many deaths. Nigeria claims one and doesn't allow others in just as when the group came to light. It could lead again to future conflagarations(Lihaas (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)).

Anyone know which locations Boko Haram controls?

President Jonathan's recent declaration of emergency stated that "Already, some northern parts of Borno state have been taken over by groups whose allegiance is to different flags and ideologies...In many places, they have destroyed the Nigerian flag and other symbols of state authority and in their place, hoisted strange flags suggesting the exercise of alternative sovereignty." [2] Has anyone seen any information on which specific localities have been taken over? As a Wikipedia reader I would love to see this information reflected in the article. GeoEvan (talk) 09:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Merge with 2009 Nigerian sectarian violence

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Boko and Haram

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unexplained reverts by Anon IP(s)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Official name

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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 discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Boko Haram ties with Salafists in Mali and Somalia?

Under Ideology, Boko Haram are described as a Salafist group, attributing this to David Cook. This is implicitly contradicted by the same source, when David Cook claims that Boko Haram follows Usman dan Fodio, which was a 19th century reformer WITHIN Malikite Islam. David Cook also writes that Boko Haram is demonstrating the paradigm of Jemaa Islamia / Jemaah Islamiyah in South-East Asia. But also this is NOT a Salafist group. (At this moment their ideological brethern, under the same name, battle AGAINST Salafists in Pakistan and Afghanistan)

Both Malikite and Jemaaia Islam see themselves as regional branches of Sunni Islam, having spiritual feelings for their regional Islamic hero's who founded those branches. On the other hand, Salafist groups like Aqim and Al Shabaab strongly reject worshiping or attributing of special religious status to any Muslim cleric born after the prophet Mohammed. That's why Salafists destroyed holy Muslim graves and shrines in Somalia and Timbuctu and Afghanistan and everywhere they go.

The difference is not trivial. If Boko Haram see themselves as followers of regional spiritual hero Usman dan Fodio, then they would have great problems with Salafists telling them to stop worshipping Usman. More so because their central anger focuses on their idea that foreigners always try to change their culture and religion.

Therefore, if Boko Haram are NOT Salafi's, (which I think is the case) then it is very unlikely that Aqim and Al Shabaab will manage to effectively team up with them.

If they ARE Salafi's, then that would be very difficult to explain to those Nigerian Muslims they want to recruit, because Nigerian popular Islam is strongly founded on and centered around worshiping Islamic leaders from previous centuries. (Such as Usman dan Fodio). Also, we would have known, because they would most likely also have attacked Muslim shrines, which are all over northern Nigeria.

Trying to trace the original sources on Boko Haram's supposed Salafism, and their ties with Al Shabaab and Aqim, it is all very iffy or explicitly speculative. There is no authoritative academic source that I can find in the public domain. Just unsourced claims by political leaders and unnamed security analysts.

So yes, they are nasty boggers, on a killing spree against all supposed religious and other opponents. But I don't see any evidence that they already have successfully teamed up with Salafists. I don't even think there is much chance it will happen.

So how do we improve the article?Pieter Felix Smit (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)Pieter Felix Smit (talk) 15:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that, as some of the militant groups struggle more, they would be united more by their common enemies than their common beliefs. If there are no other sources about this then we should keep these links. As long as they are attributed correctly as the beliefs of whichever leader, these are portraying the reliable sources in circulation (which is what Wikipedia is for). Any more looks like it might be original research. I don't know the inner workings of either group so I don't know what the links might actually be - sharing resources occasionally, allowing convoys, etc. - so I will at least do some more research on seeing what is a fair representation of the reliable sources. Dreambeaver(talk) 00:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

References

Non-innocent victims????

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

"Since its founding in 2001, the jihadist terrorists have been responsible for roughly 4,000 deaths comprising mostly innocent people"

This seems to imply that some of the deaths were not innocent people. But I would think that victims of terrorism are by definition innocent victims? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.185.42.172 (talk) 08:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Basically, yes. Colloquially, "innocent person" is used to signify "civilian casualty" or "uninvolved victim" as opposed to an involved party, so hypothetically, if Boko Haram killed police forces deliberately opposing them, we might say "the jihadist terrorists have been responsible for roughly 4,000 deaths comprising mostly uninvolved passersby," or something like that, but we shouldn't us any colloquialism that might otherwise be read to imply the victims somehow deserved it. Thanatosimii (talk) 04:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I would assume this total may include Boko Haram members killed in accidents and friendly fire. It is a leading cause of death in terrorist/armed organizations, for instance the IRA lost more members in training accidents and bomb making accidents than they did in actual combat. 89.100.23.108 (talk) 06:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

It's better to say x civilians and y police/military or else just a single number for all casualties. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.