Talk:Jihad/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Lead rewrite

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 (talk • contribs) 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

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.

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

Kashmir is not a country...

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 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)

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)

Baha'i section

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

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2018

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

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

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

Purpose of Jihad

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2020

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

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

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

Removal of content

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sixth Pillar of Islam

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

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

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

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

-Bukhari

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of instances in which jihad was invoked

The article currently gives long list of instances throughout history in which jihad was invoked. And the true list is probably longer, because one can find invocation of jihad in most violent incidents (from a full war to an isolated militant attack) where one of the parties is Muslim. I suggest the full list not be created at this article. If such a list is notable we can create a list or category for that.VR _talk 20:21, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the partial list.VR _talk 12:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Abdullah Yusuf Azzam

I think giving an entire section to Abdullah Yusuf Azzam's views (Bin Laden's teacher) is undue. Instead what should happen is we should have a section on "Jihadism" that covers the exploitation of jihad by modern terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS, and it would include mainstream Muslims' rejection of such explotation.VR _talk 14:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Greater and Lesser jihad

Let's talk about importance and prelevance of those terms outside of Islamic mysticism (Sufism). Also about user recently added "Timbuktu hadiths". Considering to according Rudolph Peters the tradition differentiating between the “greater and lesser jihad” is not included in any of the authoritative compilations of Hadith. And David Cook "In reading Muslim literature—both contemporary and classical one can see that the evidence for the primacy of spiritual jihad is negligible. Today it is certain that no Muslim, writing in a non-Western language (such as Arabic, Persian, Urdu), would ever make claims that jihad is primarily nonviolent or has been superseded by the spiritual jihad." It is easy to someone find couple of examples and try to present something as different or to hold bigger infulence from actual but what matter is WP:RSUW and "Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all". AnAnicolaidis (talk) 11:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for taking this to talk, but please undo the fourth revert you made shortly after this or I will report it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Reversion is only intended for obvious vandalism or disruptive editing, not to undo another editor's work (especially when it is properly sourced) just because you don't like the contents. I hope this is clear and that you will do the sensible thing and self-revert pending the conclusion of our discussion here.

Now let me address the points you have raised: first, there are no such thing as "Timbuktu hadiths" - all hadiths are sayings of the prophet Muhammad. The references to Timbuktu were clearly stated as an example of where this particular hadith is widely circulated. Secondly, the material you removed begins with material stating that caliphs were influenced by their belief in the hadith to sponsor scholarship and ends with a 2015 BBC source quoting a reputable professor of Islam clearly discussing the existence of the hadith as fact. You make a number of other assertions above, particularly with regards to Rudolph Peters and David Cook, but without anything to refer to - please you can either cite these statements in the talk or link to an appropriate resource.

I can readily make a couple of initial points though - collections of hadiths are just collections of sayings, so they do not make specific points (this is what commentaries on the hadith are for), so that particular statement seems nonsensical. As to the statement attributed to David Cook, he may well make a valid point, but he is still just one voice - and even if he is right, it does not mean we should ignore others. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

So you see, for example, widely circulated in Timbuktu, considering whole Islam and spread of Islam is totally negligible. Minority view, fringe. And we here do not doing any promotion or advocacy for fringe or minority views of few separated voices spread around the globe throughout centuries. One example of widely circulated hadith from The History of Baghdad by Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi more then enough and note about influence in Sufi circles. AnAnicolaidis (talk) 12:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Not even 10 similar examples of that Timbuktu circulated saying means to it is notable or hold by some significant amount of people. It is needed to be recognized by a variety of high quality scholary sources as that, important, held by many people, had impact. This is an encyclopedia, not some apologetics advocacy blog. AnAnicolaidis (talk) 12:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the hadith should be removed, but I also think that it should be given WP:DUE weight. Which means we can briefly mention it in the "Greater and Lesser jihad" section and move the rest of the discussion to the "History" section.VR _talk 13:24, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's possible that the more appropriate place for it may be somewhere else on the page. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Failed verification

@AnAnicolaidis: kindly explain this edit in which you removed a failed verification tag from: Peters, Rudolph (1996). Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam: A Reader. Princeton: Marcus Wiener. p. 150. ISBN 978-9004048546.. But the last entry in the table of contents in this book is on page 87 meaning that page number 150 doesn't exist. So I tagged the source as "failed verification". Yet you removed the tag with the edit summary "This is ok, source, page, Rudoph Peters." How exactly did you verify page 150? VR _talk 22:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I also searched the words "qutb", "qutub", "maududi", "mawdudi", "azzam" and "azam", none of those gave anything.VR _talk 22:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Not the same book, someone changed ISBN. That book is from 1977 and indeed 87 pages. But book for referenced material is from 1996 with 200+ pages and it is called as in reference "Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam" and ISBN-10 ‎1558761098;ISBN-13 978-1558761094. Every source needs change to match 1996 book not 1977.AnAnicolaidis (talk) 00:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I just looked up page 150 of the 1996 book and I don't see it saying what wikipedia is attributing to it. It seems to be about the Arab-Israeli wars of 1967 and 1973. Can you provide the exact quote? VR _talk 00:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

You should ask that editor who added ref and page Louis P. Boog (talk · contribs) I checked and that was there about 5 years maybe he can help you about. For me seemed totally legit. Also the same thing is under Jihadism. Or that editor knows about or he did original research and covered it. AnAnicolaidis (talk) 01:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of who added it, AnAnicolaidis, you should not be removing failed verification tags under the edit summary "This is ok, source, page, Rudoph Peters" when you have not checked the source yourself.VR _talk 01:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

And you should notice to name of book and pages are different and years too, and then to make a move about long standing content. Or maybe move about content is motivated with some different reasons.AnAnicolaidis (talk) 01:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, I am in a good mood so to help. Page 150. First paragraph, confirmed, traditionalist, modernists and fundamentalists stances as it is stated at Wiki. That is it. AnAnicolaidis (talk) 02:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. It didn't have anything on Qutb, Maududi etc so I removed that and paraphrased it without using quotes.VR _talk 02:44, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Evolution of jihad

This is an odd section appended to the end of the history of usage and practice section. It seems to be trying to focus on the evolution of classical jihad doctrines into 21st jihadism, but in reality, the entire history section should be about the evolution of the term (not a list of examples), so this should already be covered by this point in the article, and any section entitled "evolution" in this context should begin with the first emergence of the term. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:45, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the entire history section should be about the evolution (or lack thereof) of changes of jihad in history. So I think Jihad#Evolution of the term in Islamic jurisprudence sounds redundant to history. The material should be merged into history section, wherever appropriate.VR _talk 13:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2021

A sentence in the lead reads, "In classical Islamic law (sharia), the term refers to armed struggle against unbelievers.....". Please add a link to the Kafir article for the word unbelievers like so: unbelievers. Thanks! 2409:4071:4E1D:85E8:123A:916:C28B:E2AC (talk) 14:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide a reliable source that connects this sharia use of unbelievers to the definition of Kafir.--RegentsPark (comment) 19:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

RegentsPark, the word, "unbelievers" is clearly mentioned in the lead of the kafir article which is why I asked for the word to be linked to that article. Please do so.

My concern is that the word Kafir may have specific connotations. Since I don't know much about this, I prefer seeing a source that connects sharia to kafir (or, someone else can take care of this). --RegentsPark (comment) 16:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done The Oxford source does use Kafir and Jihad together so I'll make the change. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:5197:8209:5DE9:EEA4:5B81:E5B8 (talk) 16:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

RegentsPark what source did you look at? I looked at the article "Jihad" in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam and Politics and the only reference to kafir is:

Throughout Islamic history, governments and opposition movements have declared their Muslim adversaries to be heretics or unbelievers (takfīr, declaring someone to be a kāfir, unbeliever) in order to justify their struggle against them. This line of reasoning is used by modern radical Islamic groups to legitimate their use of arms against rulers who are to all appearances Muslims.

This source seems to be talking about Muslims as being kafir, not non-Muslims. The word kafir does not neatly map to "non-Muslims" as there are many Islamic opinions that don't regard all non-Muslims as kafir, while other Islamic opinions might deem certain Muslims as kafir.VR _talk 21:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

That's what I was looking at ("declaring someone to be a kafir, unbeliever"). I interpreted the text to mean that they (governments and opposition movements) would declare someone, even Muslims, to be a non-Muslim or Kafir. However, I'm uneasy enough of moving from this to saying that the Sharia refers to unbelievers as Kafirs so feel free to remove the wiki link. --RegentsPark (comment) 22:49, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

RegentsPark,Kautilya3, I think that word can be linked to the takfir article. What do you people say?-27.7.120.16 (talk) 14:12, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

 Note: As an uninvolved editor I have returned the edit request template back to answered=yes as there is currently an ongoing consensus building discussion. I believe that this request returning to the queue is unnecessary when editors are involved in this discussion that possess sufficient permissions to make whichever edit, if any, is agreed upon. If the purpose was to get more eyes on this discussion, there are other more appropriate venues. Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 21:19, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

And I have again closed it, as the template instructions say Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. IP editor, please stop reopening the request. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:05, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

What's Khaled Abou El Fadl's last name?

@Iskandar323: what is Khaled Abou El Fadl's last name? Is it "El Fadl" or "Abou El Fadl"? And is the "e" in "El" capitalized? VR _talk 04:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2022

The hyperlink "age of puberty" should change to "Age Of Puberty" 92.97.75.47 (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done changed link to Puberty RudolfRed (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)