Talk:War on Islam controversy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bad citations, unsubstantiated facts, POV[edit]

the only reason why islam still exists is because once you get tangled in it you cannot escape. using propaganda and fear islam is passed to the next generation. let the children born in any islamic country decide what the want to believe in and surely wont be islam after what the experiance and see... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.109.198.11 (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the complaints made by this anon are highly questionable. And the tags require footnotes for very basic facts. At this level every sentence would require several footnotes.
What the tags require are citations of reliable sources, which is a basic requirement for Wikipedia articles. Don't worry that there might be too many citations -
Excuse me if I do worry. Digging up cites takes time, and knowning that someone can peppering an article with demands for citations to sabotage that article. I put it to you that it is downright ignorant to demand proof that the leader of the only successful Islamic revolution (Khomeini) the intellectual leader of the Sunni Islamist movemnet (Qutb) are leading Islamists. --BoogaLouie 15:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down. I'm not trying to sabotage your article, in fact, I think that a well written article with good citations would be a great thing. And I didn't demand proof that those two individuals are leading Islamists; maybe you misunderstood the reason for my tagging one particular part of the article. If you think I really did make a mistake with some particular tag, then just say so. And yes, I agree that good research takes time - at no point have I demanded instant action, but POV and non-cited parts of the article can (and should be) marked as such. 86.157.4.96 16:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
see, for example the global warming article which has upto 4 citations for a single statement, and almost 100 citations in total. The more reliable citations there are, the better, but you must use reliable sources, not blogs and random web pages. 86.157.4.96 00:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why you have two tags on this sentence:
The phrase or similar phrases have been used by some Muslims[weasel words], particularly Islamists[weasel words],
when the article goes on to quote three very promenent Islamists at length? Is there any question who the Islamists are? If not how are these weasal words? --BoogaLouie 15:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, try logging in. ---BoogaLouie 15:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In general, you shouldn't use a qualifier for a sentence when a more specific qualifier, that is also true, exists. Instead of saying "Some people", say who the people actually are. If it is a particular group (say, Al Qaeda) then name them. If it is the majority of Muslims, then say so (of course, you'll need to cite a reliable source). The problem with the word "some" is that it tells us nothing. Consider "some Americans have been to the moon". Why not just say "Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong have been to the moon"? What do you gain by being less specific? 86.157.4.96 16:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything wrong with something like: "Leading Islamists Ayatollah Khomeini, Sayyid Qutb, and Osama bin Laden have written and spoken about the alleged war..." ? 86.157.4.96 17:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The phrase is used by some Muslims ... and leftists" - citation for leftists? This may also be undue weight - how many Muslims use this phrase? One? Two? 100%?

"Alleged scriptural evidence for the existence of the alleged war is found in ahadith" - According to who? Looks like POV.

kindly look at the footnote. Cook, Understanding Jihad (2005), p.143 --BoogaLouie 19:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If Cook is the only person who thinks this, then say so. If others agree with him, then say who they are. If it's a generally held opinion, then cite the research that says so. 86.157.4.96 00:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Evidence of the strength of the belief.. question: do you believe the United States seeks to “weaken and divide the Islamic world?”' - clear POV. The US is seen as divisive in international politics; often picking one side over another to support. This doesn't say anything about the level of belief in a "War against Islam"

This was a survey taken by a reputable company. POV? of course they are asking for POV, its a survey of peoples opinions --BoogaLouie 19:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The repute of the company and the POV of the question is not at issue, the use of it as evidence of general Islamic belief in a "War on Islam" is. Do you not see a difference between the statement "the US seeks to weaken and divide the Islamic world" and the statement "the US is waging a campaign to annihilate Islam"? The first one was the actual question of the survey, the second is worded from the opening paragraph of this article. You are using the former to support the latter, but they are very different statements.86.157.4.96 00:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Muslim children could be seen wearing Osama bin Laden T-shirts" Again, this doesn't say anything about the level of belief in a "War against Islam" which is what the paragraph is arguing.

Also "..in celebration of his attack" - how can you possibly know what motivated them to wear those T-shirts? The statement is POV.

There are numerous grammar, spelling and other problems with this article, some of them are ridiculously obvious e.g. "On September 11, 1983, the king of Poland began the Battle of Vienna".

"Defense of the idea that a war against Islam exists" - this whole section lends too much weight to a few right-wing evangelical Christians. A few "Statements portraying Islam as a destructive ideology" is not in any kind of way evidence that there actually is a "War against Islam".

re cartoons - Socialist Worker is a POV un-reliable source. You can say "the International Socialist Organisation believe this..." but you can't use it as a citation for a general statement. The other citation (news24) reports that one editor said it was a conspiracy (not a war). In this case, report that it is the view of one editor, not a general finding.

"Proponents of this view often consider.." - again, this cites a single opinion piece from a Jordanian newspaper. It would be more accurate to say "John V. Whitbeck thinks that..." unless you can show that this is a generally held opinion.

"Alleged conspiracies against Islam sometimes involve other Muslims who are accused of being appostates" - this whole paragraph is only supported by a single citation from some South African blog. Not an acceptable source.

"Some critics of Islam believe that such a war is justified as self-defence" - again, a general statement is made, with the only supporting citation being some guy's blog.

86.157.4.96 09:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Time Line would be essential in determining who is waging war on whom. I believe evidence would show that the War on Terror was declared only after Islamics began attacking Westerners. This would indicate that it is actually the Islamics who are instigating war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.14.102.251 (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology[edit]

There have been understandable objections that many of the sources don't use the word "War on Islam" (note, "on" can be substituted by "against"). However, not all sources will use the word. Some will use the word "Attack on Islam", others will use "crusade against Islam". Bless sins 20:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing the delte tag since there is not a lot of original research left on the page.Bless sins 21:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work! I did some spelling and grammar fixes.
—-- That Guy, From That Show! (esperanza) 2006-05-14 03:16


Made a few changes. If there is a “War on Islam”, that is a matter of opinion. Nations fighting the “War on Terrorism” have not declared a war on Islam and just because Ann Coulter may not like Islam, she does not speak for either US policy or the west in general. So the “War on Islam”, imo, should be referred to as an alleged war. Also, objections to, or use of, the term “War on Islam” does not make one hostile to, or sympathetic to, Islam. Added a link to Islamofascism as it seem to come up in heated (and biased…on all sides) ‘debates’ on political Islam and the ‘war on terrorism’. Chwyatt 11:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, this article is not abuot "criticism" of Muslims rather hostility to Muslims. The persons noted here don't criticize "Islamic extremism", rather they attack Islam as a whole. The war on terrorism and on islam are two different things. I agree we should move this to "Alleged..."Bless sins 13:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Change name to War Against Islam[edit]

This seems less ambiguous and more widely used. Any objections? --BoogaLouie 17:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

‘War on…’ or ‘War against…’, either is fine by me. So long as the article stresses that this is a perceived and alleged ‘war’ than an actual war, then either is fine. Chwyatt 07:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please make it "War against Islam" rather than "War Against Islam". Other than that it is fine by me.Bless sins 16:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Edits[edit]

Lots of POV on this page, a recent edit was made that added 3 paragraphs of text citing one historian (ref'd as historians). Removed, perhaps can be added in with less talk of "ignorance"? BananaFiend (talk) 11:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah right. Just because I quoted only one historian doesn't mean there is only one historian. You can go and check out pages on Wikipedia itself. Pages like Medieval christian view of Muhammad have numerous citations and references. It appears to me you are being partial and biased - like those guys mentioned. What I quoted was a product of actual research - unlike much of the page and ironically, it is the part that is targeted - tells me something about people like you. You are a vandalist, man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xe Cahzytr Ryz (talk • contribs) 11:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You quoted only one historian, and said "historians". I note now that you have added in multiple citations (3 for 1 page, and all 5 falling within a few pages). Note that I have not reverted these changes. It would still be better if you could merge these into 1 citation and perhaps consider summarising the views of this historian a little more succinctly. I have not read the book, but if it is notable, then I see no reason not to mention it here.
Also, let me make this clear, I have no idea as to the truth or importance of what you are saying, nor do I intend to discuss it. I am however commenting on the style - and it needs some improving. Congratulations on the improvements you have already made. BananaFiend (talk) 13:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know why you said I was a "vandalist", but having reviewed the change-log I realise I tagged your edit as vandalism - this was incorrect and I apologise for it. BananaFiend (talk) 13:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, as you can see, I am desperately searching for citation, adding appropriate pictures, quotations, justifying stuff already mentioned (example of this is that where there was a verification request for "some states" I went over various transcripts of Osama bin laden to see who he accuses of waging war against islam). I hope you'll be patient and see it to the end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xe Cahzytr Ryz (talk • contribs) 13:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will indeed - this is an emotional topic, good luck with your edits. BananaFiend (talk) 13:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a loudspeaker for Bin Laden[edit]

Wikipedia is not a loudspeaker for Bin Laden, nor are we the al-Qaeda press. It seems that every instance of "war against Islam" mentioned by extremist groups is mentioned here, while very little attention is given to academic and reliable sources.

Academic reliable sources don't exist, you say? That would be a just cause for deletion. If they do exist please use them instead of publishing Bin Laden's rhetoric.Bless sins (talk) 04:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Bin Laden is dead, fortunately. All actions of his quoted here need to be in past tense, like "said" instead of "says." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.238.139.239 (talk) 04:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism[edit]

It seems that the only thing in the part about criticism is:

An example of what may be referred to as Islam's war against the West is this fatwa issued by Osama bin Laden:

Then the fatwa itself is qouted. How is that any form of criticism? He is a proponent of the idea! --Maha Odeh (talk) 09:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Ghraib[edit]

What does the pictures of abuse in Abu Ghraib have to do with a war on Islam? Prisoner abuse, war crime, racism...war on Islam? It is doubtful if the prisoners were any more or less persecuted than Christian Arabs would have been... Unless there is some rational, I am removing the picture as unnecessary, undefined and inflammatory. There is no discussion of Abu Ghraib in the article. 75.3.230.66 (talk) 22:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


What does reality have to do with anything? Even if christians in arab countries are jailed and have ugly women lead them around on leashes, it has nothing at all to do with whether the abu ghraib pictures and incidents supported the view of some that their is a war on islam. It seems to me that it is quite apparent these events were signifigant to this article's topic. Additionally, it would seem the lack of citation or explanation of relevance would be cause to add such rather than remove content. If you contend the content doesn't belong at all then feel free to explain why.

I just don't understand why you attempt to rationalize the events, their use to support a war on islam view, or lable the pics as inflamatory. What does any of this have to do with whether they belong in the article?--Δζ (talk) 05:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crusades etc[edit]

Naked POV and completely one-sided. The Crusades happened in a vacuum? The Muslims were content to live peaceably side by side with Christians in the Mideast and even in Europe? Perhaps a mantion might be in order of how Islam got there- by armed conquest in the name of Muhammed. Christendom might be excused for feeling a little nervous. The First Crusade was Urban II's response to the Byzantine's plea for help against the invading Turks.Solicitr (talk) 07:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to make it a bit more balanced. --BoogaLouie (talk)

I agree this piece is awful. From the article: "American authorities have been unable to establish any direct link between Islam and the Fort Hood Shooting." - Really? I believe the killer exclaimed "God is great" as he began his murderous rampage. What kind of link do you have in mind? Cutugno (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know the "allah is great" is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.252.62.192 (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This section is so biased and lacking in any balanced historical merits that it could be a textbook for the view of the crusades propagated by Islamic extremists and their followers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.111.168.151 (talk) 09:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You people have no respect for this encyclopedia. Shame on you. Your opinions and beliefs do not matter and should not appear here. You do not back up any of your claims on this page. An encyclopedia is supposed to have a certain neutrality. The way in which you portray the 'War on Islam' is totally biased, and heavily influenced by Western mass media. Do some research please. One recommendation: The 'War against Islam' is controversial and quite meaningless. What about 'The War against Islamism'? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB00:BC:3900:E084:235B:6394:D8A4 (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of the idea that there is a war against Islam[edit]

In this section there is a fatwa by Osama bin Laden is mentioned. I think it is irrelevant in the section. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does a "War against Islam" mean "actual military activity" against Muslim populations?[edit]

Post at my talk page - BoogaLouie (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC) :[reply]
Your repeated POV edits to the War against Islam page are just that - repeated POV edits. When there is a controversial issue regarding any article, relavent discussion must take place before editing the article. Your actions are clearly tht of a Sectarian bigot. Regarding the content itself, you can create a whole new page about conspiracy theories related to Islam and link it to the page War against Islam. The article War of Islam is about actual military activity against Muslim populations. So, please keep this in mind. It is not that your opinion is not respected. It just isn't relevent to the topic of the article. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azial Xarel Druda (talk • contribs) 10:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC) [reply]

While I think this is uncivil and paranoid and so on, rather than petitioning to have Azial Xarel Druda blocked, I'm going to turn the other cheek and offer a rewrite of a subsection that Azial Xarel Druda appears to have issues with. It's "Memoirs Of Mr. Hempher"
Below is a rewrite of the section emphasizing the anti-Islamic conspiracy of the "Memoirs", not just doubts about its veracity. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confessions of a British Spy[edit]

Main article: Memoirs Of Mr. Hempher, The British Spy To The Middle East

Memoirs Of Mr. Hempher, The British Spy To The Middle East or Confessions of a British Spy is a document purporting to be the account by an 18th century British agent, Hempher, and his manipulation of a gullible Muslim into creating the conservative Islamic reform movement of Wahhabism.

According to the book, Hempher, the British spy, working in the early 1700s, disguises himself as a Muslim and infiltrates the Muslim Ottoman Empire with the goal of weakening it. He tells his readers: "when the unity of Muslims is broken and the common sympathy among them is impaired, their forces will be dissolved and thus we shall easily destroy them... We, the English people, have to make mischief and arouse schism in all our colonies in order that we may live in welfare and luxury."[1] For this purpose, Hempher enlists "a gullible, hotheaded young Iraqi in Basra named Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab".[1] Hempher corrupts and flatters Wahhab until the man is willing to found his own sect.

Bernard Haykel of Harvard's Olin Institute describes the document as an anti-Wahhabi forgery, "probably fabricated by one Ayyub Sabri Pasha".[2] However, according to Haykel, the document has significant currency in the Middle East.[2]

As for the article being limited to actual military activity against Muslim populations, the lead states it is about a perceived campaign to harm, weaken or even annihilate the religion of Islam, using military, economic, social and cultural means. The Confessions of a British Spy book has Hempher stating that his goal is to "destroy" Muslims which I think we can all agree is a war-like action. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


As you indicate, the article itself disclaims the view that "war against islam" is limited to military operations. Certainly I was not aware of such limitations on the term. Given that the person who posted on your talk page failed to cite any authority for their claim, I wouldn't give it a second thought.--Δζ (talk) 05:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment moved from article[edit]

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia may not use propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, political, religious, or otherwise. So why does this page remain unchanged??? Thriving1 (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Thriving1[reply]

WTC burning picture : Justification for a war[edit]

I do not see any sense in having that picture in this article other than to promote a blatant POV - ie, WTC was attacked by Muslims, hence a war against them is justified. Those opinions are quoted under "Justification for a war", alright, but putting a popular image there is trying to push a POV and should be removed as I do not see any other sense how it supplements the article Zencv Whisper 22:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and removed the picture. The section still needs work like renaming, restructuring or removing of information. IQinn (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obama[edit]

Has used the phrase to state we are NOT fighting a "war on islam". Now if only Anwar al-Awlaki could agree. Redhanker (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43 all said the same thing. What's your point? Klopek007 (talk) 05:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

anti non-Muslim quotes in Quran[edit]

In the justification section, it's a good idea to write anti non-Muslim quotes in quran, and the fact that Quran is riddled by such quotes. e.g. -

“And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for God. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers.”

“Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy handhold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.”

“Again and again will those who disbelieve, wish that they had bowed (to God's will) in Islam. Leave them alone, to enjoy (the good things of this life) and to please themselves: let (false) hope amuse them: soon will knowledge (undeceive them).” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.176.125 (talk) 08:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to put those quotes or even discuss them, then to remain neutral you must at the very minimum include the historical context for those verses or at least mention that there are plenty of verses in the Christian Bible that also indicate destruction of non-Christians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamaas9 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bible is off topic 1 Carniole House (talk) 08:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Crusades[edit]

How about the fact that the Muslims invaded the Levant in the first place, so the church can be justifiably said to be reclaiming what it thought was land it should control? 94.14.17.223 (talk) 09:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention whatsoever of the aggression against either Rhodes or Malta or indeed Vienna. The idea that Muslims were innocent victims of nasty Europeans is profoundly historically correct and one propagated as an act of propaganda by muslim extremists.

Repeated attacks on Christian pilgrims instigated a necessary and successful campaign to eliminate muslim bandits who had no prohibitions on robbing and enslaving pilgrims. The tradition of religious intolerance in Islam is evident in the Sudan today.

A better subject would be does Islam suffer from a psychology of victimhood while being utterly incapable of facilitating religious tolerance itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.111.168.151 (talk) 09:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The land was never controlled by western European nations, only the Byzantines had any rightful claim to it.173.67.20.63 (talk) 23:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to war on terror?[edit]

While the concept and criticisms are notable, the article is very poorly written and sourced and quite POV. If it was cut back by half or 2/3 to just the most neutral WP:RS it might stand on its own. But somebody's got to do the work. Otherwise it needs merging so that those who search this term are redirected to something relevant. CarolMooreDC 13:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - they're entirely different. This article is about a term or a concept, War on Terror is about a military campaign or a period of history. While I agree this article needs much improvement, redirecting it to War on Terror would be highly POV and inappropriate. Robofish (talk) 14:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


This entire article reads like a paranoid fantasy from a Talban member. What is it even doing on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.111.168.151 (talk) 09:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing on Wikipedia? Your opinions do not belong here. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB00:BC:3900:E084:235B:6394:D8A4 (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prophesy[edit]

From the Usage section:


"According to scholar David Cook, what some believe is scriptural evidence for the existence of the alleged war is found in a popular hadith, one that supposedly prophesies a war against Islam "is the Tradition of Thawban":"


How could a prophesy of future events possibly constitute evidence for those (alleged) events? This is just theology, and contributes nothing by way of proof or reasoning. Heavenlyblue (talk) 17:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did this prophesy not refer to the Mad Mahdi massacring the population of Khartoum? The Mad Mahdi was widely considered a holy man by his followers just like Mohammed was by his. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.111.168.151 (talk) 09:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thawban[edit]

From the Usage section:

"...a popular hadith, one that supposedly prophesies a war against Islam "is the Tradition of Thawban"

Does this mean "one that supposedly prophesies [that] a war against Islam "is the Tradition of Thawban""?

Or should it read "in the Tradition of Thawban"?


Also, some explanation of who Thawban is should be given. I see a possible citation (http://trueislamicstories.blogspot.ca/2007/11/thawban-companion-of-holy-prophet-pbuh.html) describing him as a freed slave of Mohammed. This seems to mean 'Mohammed's slave who was freed', or should it be taken to mean 'a slave freed by Mohammed'? Heavenlyblue (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Repetition?[edit]

"According to scholar David Cook, what some believe is scriptural evidence for the existence of the alleged war is found in a popular hadith, one that supposedly prophesies a war against Islam "is the Tradition of Thawban"[clarification needed]:[17]
The Messenger of God said: The nations are about to flock against you [the Muslims] from every horizon, just as hungry people flock to a kettle. We said: O Messenger of God, will we be few on that day? He said: No, you will be many in number, but you will be scum, like the scum of a flash-flood, without any weight, since fear will be removed from the hearts of your enemies, and weakness (wahn) will be placed in your hearts. We said: O Messenger of God, what does the word wahn mean? He said: Love of this world, and fear of death.[18]
On the authority of Thawbaan, Mohammad said:[19]
“The People will soon summon one another to attack you as people when eating invite others to share their food.” Someone asked, “Will that be because of our small numbers at that time?” He replied, “No, you will be numerous at that time: but you will be froth and scum like that carried down by a torrent (of water), and Allah will take the fear of you from the breasts (hearts) of your enemy and cast al-wahn into your hearts.” Someone asked, “O Messenger of Allah, what is al-wahn?” He replied, “Love of the world and dislike of death.”
— An authentic hadith recorded by Abu Dawud and Ahmad"


This appears to be the repetition of the same passage from two different translations. Heavenlyblue (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence...[edit]

In Usage:

"Evidence of the strength of the belief that a non-Muslim power (the United States) is at least attempting to weaken, if not annihilate, Islam...."

In the context of a discussion of proof for and against a 'war against Islam', the use of the word "evidence" here is inappropriate and misleading. I'll change it. Heavenlyblue (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Italics[edit]

In Usage:

"In the Middle East and Pakistan, religious discourse dominates societies, the airwaves, and thinking about the world. Radical mosques have proliferated throughout Egypt. Bookstores are dominated by works with religious themes … The demand for sharia, the belief that their governments are unfaithful to Islam and that Islam is the answer to all problems, and the certainty that the West has declared war on Islam; these are the themes that dominate public discussion. Islamists may not control parliaments or government palaces, but they have occupied the popular imagination."

It seems to me unlikely that this emphasis is original. If not, then it must not be used here. This is not an essay, but an encyclopedia article. Does anyone have access to the original source? Heavenlyblue (talk) 18:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Counterarguments[edit]

This article badly needs a Controversy, or better yet a Counterarguments, section. The tone of most of the quotations is one of persecuted innocence, and much of the focus (probably quite rightly) is on accusations of more recent Western imperialism. What is almost entirely lacking, however, is the balancing viewpoint that much hostility to Islam in the West is simply slow, residual pushback against hundreds of years of aggressive, imperialistic expansion by Islam, including numerous attacks on Western nations. On the issue of the claim of the attempted destruction of Islamic religion, it could be noted that there are many accounts of forced conversions to Islam - officially forbidden, according to many modern scholars, but widely practiced in the times of aggressive expansion. Thirdly, the point can be made that people from cultures with very different customs and values sometimes are bewildered or even disgusted by elements of another person's culture. Certainly, much is made in Islamic sources of the 'immorality' and 'corruption' of the Christian West - its 'shameless' women, etc. Would exponents of the theory of a 'war against Islam' see these writings as propaganda in a 'war against Christianity'? I very much doubt it.

To balance this article, and to frame these ideas in a proper historical and social context, a Counterarguments section is an absolute necessity. Heavenlyblue (talk) 19:14, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point of terrorist groups claiming that there is a "War against Islam" is to try and draw moderates to their side. Dredging up ancient history about wars between Muslims and Christians as evidence for proof that there is, indeed, a war with Islam is counterproductive and, in fact, aids their propaganda goals.173.67.20.63 (talk) 23:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Religious propaganda article[edit]

This article is more than biased, it is badly camouflaged propaganda for a religious ideology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.157.46.166 (talk) 12:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I agree and it is so bad it actually is quite damages that religion by it's existence. The article is based on the viewpoints of in some cased cited hate mongers, war criminals and internationally reviled terrorists. It's utter garbage and has no place outside a textbook for Islamic militants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.111.168.151 (talk) 09:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag[edit]

On seeing the talk page, I can see that I am not the only one who thought that it would be rational to include counter-arguments in this article. It lacks any counterarguments and thus - I hope by accident rather than design - supports as fact the statements in the lead from such unsavoury characters as Osama bin Laden and Anjem Choudary that there is and always has been a one-sided war on Islam by the West. Although I am a history reader, I am not a history scholar, and thus can't add sources by different authors. However I do know that, as per human nature that people from all backgrounds can be greedy or cruel, Muslims did invade, colonise, enslave, rape, massacre and triumphally erase Christian culture, before, during and after Crusades and colonialism. '''tAD''' (talk) 00:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article should be deleted anyway. This is a selection of opinions from various extremists (who, we are repeatedly told by politicians and the media, are in no way representative of most Muslims), thrown together in slapdash fashion, with the resulting mess being named the "War against Islam". The individual beliefs of Khomenei, Bin Laden, Choudury, etc. are detailed on their own biographical articles. This page is superfluous. 82.41.197.51 (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have added a section -- Reactions -- to deal with Sophia's complaint. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dredging up ancient history and events from a millennium or so ago is pointless. It's original research regardless, to respond with claims made by Kohmenei with counterarguments you yourself invented.173.67.20.63 (talk) 23:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help with vandalism[edit]

The vandalizing edits are too fast for me to keep up with.

  Bfpage |leave a message  23:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've restored the pre-vandalism version and protected the page for 3 months. Thanks for catching this! And remember, you can report vandals at WP:AIV and request page protection at WP:RFPP. Best regards, Swarm X 23:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on War against Islam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on War against Islam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article must reflect on the conspiracy theory character of its topic[edit]

This article must reflect on the conspiracy theory character of its topic, it must do so in the introduction. There is a ton of good research on conspiracy theories, they emerge where societies see their environment and as a consequence their world change while feeling powerless about it and at least to some degree also not capable to explain and grasp what is happening. For example the article Conspiracy theories in the Arab world does a fine job in this respect in its introduction, and so should this article. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 07:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up the article and removing the POV flag[edit]

I think I appropriately re-arranged and cleaned up the article enough today to remove the POV flag. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  1. ^ a b HizmetBooks
  2. ^ a b » Anti-Wahhabism: a footnote Middle East Strategy at Harvard

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on War against Islam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:33, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu are crusading against Islam[edit]

In India,followers of Hinduism and other Indian religions and Zoroastrianism and also the tribal religions in India are crusading against of Islam for demolishing Temple and other sacre building in medieval period of India.Followers of Hinduism and other Dharmic religions and Zoroastrianism and also the tribal religions of India consider Islam as barbaric,false and demonic religion.

So this can be part of war against Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.27.193 (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 November 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move to Proposal 1. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 10:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


War against Islam conspiracy theory → ? – According to the just-closed AFD, the current title of the article may be inappropriate as the topic may not be a "conspiracy theory" or known as such. Since we don't settle article naming discussions at AFD and there was no consensus there on a replacement title, I'll begin a proper name discussion here. Pinging the four participants of the AFD @Steve Quinn, EastTN, MarginalCost, and Doug Weller: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 1: War on Islam controversy[edit]

  • There weren't sufficient sources for conspiracy theory but there clearly is a controversy about it. Thus this proposed title. Doug Weller talk 17:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Doug, that sources were insufficient to support "conspiracy theory". However, it has been shown to be controversial. Also, at the AfD, there were equally good candidates for the title. So, due to the need to pick one, I support this proposed title. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Doug Weller.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_on_Islam_controversy&oldid=1213954977"