Talk:Jihad

Alternative English Spellings of Jihad

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

References

Rules of war

Both the section on "rules of war" and the subsection on "defensive warfare" seem slightly more applicable to the page Islamic military jurisprudence, which also links from Rules of war in Islam, where in fact the notion of defensive war is already discussed in more or less the exact same format, and, well, the whole page is about "rules of war". It seems like the Jihad page could probably avoid replicating this material and stay more focused on the term itself, its meaning and the evolution of the concept. Curtailing this would also help the page move more swiftly along to the history of usage and practice. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I think we need to give the reader a solid understanding of what jihad actually is before we let them to the very long and convoluted history of how it has changed over the years. Jihad has been historically regarded as a military activity. As such, Islamic scholars came up with detailed rulings on what to do and not do. Just war became an important aspect. The section on "defensive warfare" should also include an explanation of offensive jihad (I'll add that soon). Also I don't agree with the section on "Doctrines", because basically the whole article is about doctrines. The section on "History" isn't about history of warfare in Islam, its about the history of the doctrine of jihad. It should not cover, for example, the history of conquests, battles, weapons etc. VR _talk 20:51, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

While I'll give you the point about the scope of defensive and offensive war, the rules of war section is totally unrelated - neither of the two paragraphs even mention the word jihad at any point, and the material on non-combatants duplicates what is already stated in the defensive/offensive war section above. This could readily be removed and replaced with a section lead redirect to Rules of war in Islam. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

If there is duplication in other sections, then it should be removed. I think this is just a work in progress. When I last checked the sources, they were definitely talking about jihad. I think just because an article on a subtopic exist doesn't mean we shouldn't have that subtopic covered here. The key way to determine this is to look at sources on jihad and see if they cover legal issues surrounding it or not. From the books I'm reading they do. This book by Rudolph Peters gives it a chapter. There is also significant discussion of conduct in Jihad in Islamic History: Doctrines and Practice and Understanding Jihad.VR _talk 13:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

There is an error about offensive jihad and the reason for fighting being Unbelief. In fact, Ibn Rushd cited a consensus among Jurists that all of the polytheists are to be warred against due to verse 8:38

Not saying this is a correct view, but we should at least attempt to accurately represent the opinions of the early and classical jurists Maalik Serebryakov (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

My edit adding a subsection discussing permissibility of new forms such as video based jihad under the hadith subsection of the article.

I had added the subsection but when it was removed I realized that it was the right thing to do because adding my link https://jihadithtv.com made the whole thing a kind of self promotion but I am still not very clear about other mistakes and what my intention really was when making them because I am still very unfamiliar and relatively new to wikipedia policies and have yet to learn many things. M-shahruz-z (talk) 14:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

'Greater and Lesser Jihad'

In this section of the article, a hadith of the prophet PBUH is mentioned: "The ink of the scholar is more holy than the blood of the martyr."

Please be aware that this hadith has very questionable isnad - being graded as either daif (weak) or mawdu (fabricated) by scholars, and its reputability as a source should be included to avoid misunderstandings.

https://islamqa.info/amp/en/answers/11920 https://www.islamweb.net/amp/en/fatwa/85115/ https://hadithanswers.com/the-ink-of-the-scholars/ 77.69.228.122 (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps so. But we need a better source for this than online religious blogs. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Apologies for my indolence, the direct sources are given in the blogs themselves, but I did not extract them. 77.69.228.122 (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Expose them further

We all should expose the Abbasid Caliphate and the Ottoman Caliphate for involvement in endless Jihad throughout every region of the world, but please don't display any flags or glorify them in our encyclopedia.

We have to expose the truth and that is the cause of the editor.

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\09:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)09:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)43.242.178.193 (talk)\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\09:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)09:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\09:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)43.242.178.193 (talk) 09:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)\\\\\\\\\\\\\09:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)~