Talk:Offensive jihad

Unreliable Sources

The article mentions Yusuf Azzam and Sayyid Qutb as "Notable Proponents", the article even goes as far as to consider the former as a "Sunni scholar". However this is blatantly wrong since none of them is considered to be a scholar, especially Azzam who has been rebutted and considered as deviant. --HakimPhilo (talk) 10:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Undue Weight

I think this article may be a violation of Wikipedia's policy of undue weight. While I am not an expert on this subject, it was my understanding that The legitimacy of offensive Jihad was far from a settled subject, both among Muslims and non Muslims alike. This article however leaves me with the distinct impression that offensive Jihad is generally accepted as OK, by only siting Muslim authorities (all of whom are conspicuously modern) who support the concept. Additionally, the sources for the quote of Ahmad Husseini Al-Baghdadi, simply links to a site which requires the user to pay in order to see the material. I will be doing some extensive revisions in a few days, if that is OK with all. Maxkbennett (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed some mild npov, redundant, and off topic stuff. Also if anyone else wants to take an interest, finding the opinions of some non-Muslims could be usefull here Maxkbennett (talk) 22:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

"Offensive jihad" is not a modern concept, it goes back through medieval scholars like Ibn Taymiyah and Ibn Khaldun, etc. and up to the first four caliphs. In fact the distinction between "offensive jihad" and "defensive jihad" is a modern innovation that would not even have been recognized by ulema before the 19th and 20th century. The legitimacy of offensive jihad only became an "unsettled subject" when the decline of Muslim military power rendered its successful undertaking impossible.

Here is the great medieval scholar Ibn Khaldun on jihad:

"In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force... The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty to them, save only for purposes of defence ..."

"Force," not meaning forcible conversion, but the conquest of another land and the forcible seizure of its government, so that its citizens can see the superiority of Islam, and voluntarily convert. This is called "fatah" in Arabic, which means both "conquest for Islam" and "opening" (as in a bottle or a door).

You need to cite your claims. --HakimPhilo (talk) 10:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

regarding Husseini Al Baghdadi

Is he really a notable? it seems like one could list every crackpot terrorist with an axe to grind and give the (erroneous) impression that this is a settled issue. If no one objects, I'm gonna remove that in a few days. Maxkbennett (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion Request: needing opinion

Does anybody see that this page is totally illogical? The majority of Muslim population are Sunnis. Therefore, if Sunnis allow fighting to concur a land, then this Muslim population would of always been active to concur more land. Shall we consider Osama Bin Laden a scholar? He calls himself a scholar, too. I believe that a Scholar is someone that is largely followed, so I believe this whole page is a mistake, especially after reading these versus: [4:29] O you who believe, do not consume each others' properties illicitly - only mutually acceptable transactions are permitted. You shall not kill yourselves. GOD is Merciful towards you.AdvertAdam (talk) 02:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

You seem to think that their is only 1 correct true interpretation of islam.and you are following that?? you are right, everything else is wrong? otherwise you should stop blurting out verses of the quran to prove your point. because on wikipedia, you were told before, you can not use the quran as the main source.so saying the quran says "such and such" so this is wrong, or the quran says "such and such", so this is right, is not going to get you anywhere. Instead you should consider expanding the article and adding the views of the 4 schools of Islamic thought (not just views which agree with you),this article lacks the views of those 4 major sunni schools--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The article should not be deleted since experts recognise that some scholars allows for offensive jihad. Yusuf Al-Qaradawi who proclaim adherence to defensive jihad states here that some jurists allows offensive jihad. Davidelah (talk) 01:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

@DavidElah, that was a very interesting read. Are we allowed to add the info in that article on wiki (as it seems really balanced), or does AdamRce think its an unreliable source. i would like to know AdamRce's view on adding this as a source, it is a muslim brotherhood website--Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

If you haven't read my reply here, I can write it again on your talkpage! ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 04:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You also seem to have been removing or editing data by slapping it with the claim that it is undue weight. please read the above discussion on undue weight !--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that you should keep accusing an editor of a discussion he started when he first started editing! No-one followed it then, and I won't follow it now.  Closed ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 05:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Intro Insurtion

Are you considering this editor a credible writer? He's the one who wrote the source you added here. Again, for the millionth time, please reread WP:RS... ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 23:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

i dont know the editor.anyway, i have removed the enclyopedia of the orient source, on further inspection, the article is more like a blog of that editor--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Galup source

Can anyone explain why has the Galup source been removed for the second time? So, a statistic of the majority's pov is now claimed to be mine...! ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 05:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

should this be in the lead? and i really cant verify the source. i am thinking the source oyu cited does not mention anything about offensive jihad? there are many other statistics from groups like pew research e.g about number of people who support violent jihad. should only 1 poll be mentioned. would you support adding the other polls e.g the number who support violet jihad or suicide bombing, found here , why only add stats that support your views. also, if you translate this article, on al-jazeera. 64.5% of people say non violent jihad is outdated, and renouncing violent jihad is absurd

would you also support adding a poll about the number of muslims who support osama bin laden in countries like pakistan and in the middle east region. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, many explanations needed; but I'll try to keep it short. I haven't provided a poll, according to my answer below. So, according to your first source, they consider that Afghanis defending their land, in their land, from the invading Russians "offensive"? The only answer I can say is open a dictionary. We don't need to switch to politics, but there's a long story behind AlJazeera. Anyways, that's definitely unofficial and not a reliable source "per Docs below". You can't just rely on mixed polls for your personal knowledge. It's clear that defensive is attacking an enemy's army in your land or offending you, while offensive is attacking innocents in their land.

Anyways, I assume that you're not considering "think" as a dispute. I was actually involved with a group of researchers about the topic in my University (here in California) a year ago, and our professor was shocked about the results comparing to the western media. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 09:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Adam, you need to read WP:LEDE, you can't just insert whatever crap you want in the first paragraph. In any event, a poll isn't an RS for anything but opinions, you definitely can't assert it as fact. The RS policy has been linked for you several times on different pages; you really need to review it further. Doc Tropics 21:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you should specify in your summaries if you're unhappy with the editor or the edits! Sorry for my language, but you're not credible enough to call the text of the two authors, with the publisher, "crap". I haven't used a Gallup poll, but a book issued by the Gallup publishing-house with two professional authors; so please verify your claims before making assumptions. If you don't like the publisher, take this instead: {{cite book|first=John|last=Esposito|title=Islam: The Straight Path|publisher=Oxford University Press|date=2005|page=93}}.

Also, are you now claiming that the article is about those two scholars instead of the title? The lead policy asks for a NPOV and the article, in your preferred version, has been tagged with "{{POV}}" (not by me). You're trying to keep the opinion of only two scholars in the lead and suggesting that I read the policy again? Btw, Jihadism (Arabic: Jihadiya) is not a modern term of Jihad, and its not even known by most Muslims. I have sources to what I say, but I don't want to bring them then get deleted. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 09:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I can not verify the soruce you added about jihadism and gallup, some days ago. i also very much doubt it mentions ANYTHING, about offensive jihad--Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge to Jihad?

This page appears to have few virtues, and is perhaps little more than a POV fork of Jihad. I'd suggest it be merged/redirected there William M. Connolley (talk) 22:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I think so, also. All what the article is talking about is two scholars. Jihad is divided to violent and non-violent, then violent is divided to offensive and defensive. It might also cool the dispute there! (I honestly couldn't find time to follow-up) ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 22:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

No disagreement has been expressed. We're now fighting over some sources, so perhaps a merge might make that fight unneeded William M. Connolley (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think one editor against RSN is considered a fight :p. The second editor commented about my summary, not edit. I didn't disagree about the merge, but we still need to keep a balanced weight of Offensive Jihad and Defensive Jihad. Just keep that in mind :) ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 21:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't merge it to jihad. If a merger is desired (why again?) I'd merge offensive and defensive jihads into some sort of article on "lesser jihad" or jihad as warfare.Wheatsing (talk) 11:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree , it has to be merged with jihad. That article is way too much complementary and that's making it funny. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)