Talk:Islamic terrorism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Npov

I have tried to bring Islamic terrorism and militant Islam into some sort of neutral, coherent state. These two terms are closely related in usage and problems, so please read both before making changes. --Zeeshanhasan 18:16, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

NPOV

This article suffers badly from it's American POV. It really needs a re-write --195.7.55.146 17:57, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

An authority

• An Islamic ideal of non-violence by Zeeshan Hasan from LiberalIslam.net

I dont question the content of this person's writings but rather the extent of his influence upon the more than one billion Muslims in the world. Can anyone indicate the extent of his influence. On this own web site, he says that he can not find a publisher for this ideas. Lance6Wins 02:18, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Even if my own writings are not well known, and I would hardly claim to be an 'authority', I do contend that the POV I express is necessary for the NPOV of this article. Compare with the article on Baruch Goldstein, which mentions that the Israeli government and many Jewish groups condemned his murder of civilians. The vast majority of Muslims in the world do not go around killing innocent people, and NPOV requires that their existence be acknowledged when talking about phrases like 'Islamic terrorism'. Otherwise this all too easily becomes a derogatory term for all Muslims. Of course, it doesn't matter whether NPOV is maintained by simply mentioning the disagreement between liberal movements in islam or by including a link to the non-violence article. So even if you don't like the non-violence article, please don't delete the contrast with liberal movements. --Zeeshanhasan 09:57, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You wrote "The vast majority of Muslims in the world do not go around killing innocent people,". No one disputes this. Members of the Wikipedia community are not considered sources for inclusion in Wikipedia. Surely you can find a Muslim organization that subscribes to these views. Please check with others.....Wikipedia members are not sources. Lance6Wins 10:43, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out to me, I honestly had not realized this. I am removing all links to my own website from Wikipedia, with one exception; as a reference to the liberal movements within Islam article. There are only a handful of sites on the web dealing with that particular topic, and mine is one of them. --Zeeshanhasan 13:20, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

rename....

As per the suggestion of Ancheta Wis, I changed the name of this article form Islamic to Islamist. He suggests it is a more precise and respectful label, and I agree. Kingturtle 19:57, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Updated text to match. --LeeHunter 20:15, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Oops, thanks. Kingturtle 20:17, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Islamist terrorism an oxymoron?

I agree Islamist terrorism is a much better phrase than Islamic Terrorism although I think it is still not accurate and assumes that Islam and terrorism are not incompatible. 'Islam' means submission to God and also has a close relationship to the arabic word for peace. Therefore saying 'Islamist terrorism' is similar to saying 'Peaceful terrorism' - the two cannot exist at the same time. Obviously there does have to be a recognition that these people may claim to be muslims, and claim to be furthering the ideals of Islam, although every Muslim would agree (and everyone else) that unprovoked killing of innocent people does nothing to further the ideals of Islam. Therefore it seems an insult to Muslims to even call terrorists Muslim or associate the word Islam and terrorism. Also, some people refer to "Islamic extremism" which gives the impression that 'Islamist' terrorists are extreme Muslims - when really they are not Islamic at all. --Cap 13:29, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC) see also Christian terrorism

I don't buy the linguistic argument. Islam means "submission", while it may come from "Saalam"/peace it is not the same thing. It would translate as "submission terrorism", not "peace terrorism", if I understand the arabic correctly. --Josiah 02:52, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To give another example, a hebrew word meaning "a lost thing" has a root word that means "destruction". If taken from the root word and combined with terrorism, it would be "destruction terrorism", but if taken by the actual word, it would mean "Misplaced Terrorism." Obviously, there is a huge difference.--Josiah 02:55, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Islamic terrorism" should be an oxymoron, though sadly some terrorists consider themselves to be acting in the name of Islam. However, in any event, "Islamist terrorism" is a better word choice, despite the doubts surrounding the definition of that term, since it conveys the politics-religion interface which in practice is relevant. - Mustafaa 17:47, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Islamist vs Islamic

The article makes it seem like there is some nuance between these words which would make Islamist more respectful than Islamic. I am having difficult understanding this difference as they both seem pretty much like synonyms to 'Muslim' for me. Can someone care to explain how Islamist is more respectful please? Thanks 24.187.18.164 03:50, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

They are not synonyms any more than Islam and Islamism are synonyms. —No-One Jones 03:54, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Islamist refers to people who adapt Islam for other purposes (e.g. in this case violence) whereas Islamic refers to people who follow Islam. Islamic terrorism is seen as less acceptable as it implies that it involves all Muslims Cynical 13:18, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I think Islamist and Islamic distinctions are irrelevent. Islamic/Islamists/whatever terrorism is called as such because terrorist are committing crimes in the name of their religion. It should be irrelevant whether Islam is really a religion of peace. The other page is entitled Christian terrorism, not Christianist terrorism. 12:14 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why AZF is classified as islamic/islamist?

Why AZF is classified as islamic/islamist?

Timeline

Once again Pename is trying to insert his so-called Timeline in articles where he combines military actions and historical wars along with recent terrorist activities, as if wars and recent terrorism are the same OneGuy 06:59, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Moreover, this is like someone writing a Timeline of US military history in which wars like WWs and terrorists like Timothy Mcveigh are included. This timeline is a joke. And we can see that by including Muhammad and early Islamic battles on the page of terrorism, where this anti-Islamic editor is going with his agenda. This is clearly anti-Islamic POV and unacceptable OneGuy

No kidding. See also Template talk:Timeline of Islamist militancy. - Mustafaa 23:37, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Verdict of the Qur'an...Revert War brewing

I have reverted to last version by Kingturtle. Kingturtle was reverting to the last version that (coincidentally) I was the last to edit. User:68.107.102.129 is trying to insert something that is a POV and inaccurate.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 00:27, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

I just added the following to the talk page for the IP Address from which the non-logged user was adding the material:

== Islamist terrorism ==

I hate to remove something you added without discussion. But I removed your section at the top that said

"Qur'an prescribes killing infidels. Islam is a belief in what is written in Qur'an. Therefore by any modern definition of terrorism, Islam is a terrorist doctrine, an..."

and so on. While agree that the section titled "Verdict of the Qu'ran" is a little simplistic, a better way to go about what you want to do would be to help that section expand, not add something that most folks would not agree with.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 00:33, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

I do think the "Verdict..." section should discuss the point of view (if only to refute it) that the above user represents.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 00:36, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Doesn't seem right to talk about the "verdict" of the Qur'an without mentioning the doctrine of abrogation (sura:verse; 2:100; 13:39; 16:103; 22:51) and all that implies. - User:64.171.4.125

I have no clue what you are talking about; please explain.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 00:17, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Later passages in the Qur'an ("Kill those who join other gods with Allah wherever you may find them. I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, strike off their heads then, and strike off from them every fingertip.") are supposed to "abrogate" or supersede, the older, more peaceful passages. (Biased) references:

• http://www.youmeworks.com/cause_of_terrorism.html
• http://answering-islam.org.uk/Authors/Farooq_Ibrahim/abrogation.htm
• http://answering-islam.org.uk/Silas/abrogation.htm - Omegatron July 8, 2005 02:22 (UTC)

Lists of terrorist organisations & NPOV?

Don't really strike me as all that NPOV. One persons terrorist is the other persons' patriot. (I noticed someone on the dutch terrorism article adding George Bush, for instance :-/ ). Or did I miss a consensus on this someplace. If so, please guide me to where I'm missing it?

(I'll go look some more for a minute) Kim Bruning 20:40, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ah, the list here is redundant with List_of_terrorist_groups#Islamic, and the nice thing is that that list has a very nice Great Big Disclaimer at the top of the page. Anyone oppose merging the list to there? Kim Bruning 20:44, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Frankly, I think that the statement that "One persons terrorist is the other persons' patriot." is a red herring that belongs in the statements of governments, activists, and opinion columnists not in an encyclopedia—unless we are to admit that the encyclopedia has a POV. Terrorism is a description of tactics. And being a terrorist is not mutually exclusive with being a patriot any more than being, say, a bomber pilot who flies planes that can carry nuclear bombs is. Or being a fanatic is mutually exclusive with being religious.

Example: When the Taleban were fighting the Soviet Union, he was a 'freedom fighter' because he was on America's side. When they are doing much the same to American forces in Afghanistan they are called 'terrorists'. Cynical 13:21, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

The list in this article is odd because it (often :D) has Hizballah listed with a number of other organnizations that are all Sunni groups. Putting it here only works if you take the loosest meaning of the word "Islamist" in the title. But if we are to take that meaning, isn't it odd that that is the only non-Sunni group?—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 00:11, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Jihad

Aren't the Islamist terrorist groups motivations tied up in their interpretation of the meaning of jihad? :ChrisG 17:05, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Naming conventions

I am just wondering how naming is supposed to work out? we use Jama'at al-Tawhid wal Jihad not Monotheism and Holy War Movement .... yet we use Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group and not Groupe Islamique Combattant Marocain. So, it seems that for Arabic names we use transliteration and for French names we translate? I don't quite understand it.... gren 14:27, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please correct it. Though in both cases, I would put the translation in parentheses and suffix both with a "...usually known by the <Arabic/French> nickname/initials <Jama'at/GIS/etc.>67.118.240.18 17:53, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Correct Title

Islamic terrorism is a fine name for it. It's the using of islam (Which means submission) as a justification for Jihad and Holy War against infidels. Basically, islamic people are using their religion in order to force the rest of the world to submit by violence.

If we take Islam to mean only submission then Christians are submitters too... there's more to it than that obviously. Islamists are typically the Muslims who commit terrorist acts and thus we get the title. We could say "the Christian papacy"... but, I'm thinking many would reject that title and say "the Roman Catholic papacy"... Islamism is more specific... gren 00:29, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

REPLY: By Matttodd

Your understanding of the meaning and implications of the word 'Islam' is incorrect, madam/sir. Indeed, 'Islam' means to submit (to God), but it is from the point of view of the Muslim, and not non-Muslims. To clarify, it is the Muslims who submit to God and not non-Muslims. Also, according to Islamic doctrine, it is wrong for force to be used for anything save defense. It would be anti-dogmatic to offensively force non-believers to believe in their God and their doctrine.

As far as your arguments for the title, it's obvious that you do not understand the complications of naming this "Islamist Terrorism" in that the title implies that Islamists or Muslims are doctrinally permitted or even commanded to commit terrorism. However, as I stated previously, non-defensive force is not sanctioned and is specifically prohibited. It is due to a lack of understand of Islamic law and beliefs that many mistakenly assume that it is alright for the title to remain how it is.

Simply, my suggestion is to recognise the non-traditional nature of terrorism associated with the Islamic faith. It would be quite sufficient, yet lacking slightly, to make the name something along the lines of "Islamic Extremist Terrorism" or similar. This designation of the sect of Islam would more aptly differentiate and educate everyone on the nature of terrorism as it is related to Islamic faith.

Matttodd 04:13, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

My understanding is not incorrect... of course Christians don't call themselves Muslims so it does refer to a specific group... a moot point but one I felt was worthwhile to raise in an illustrative manner. I do understand your concerns but this has nothing to do with my "incorrect understanding". I see your concerns with putting "Islam" and "terrorism" next to each other and thinking that implies a relation, or a sanctioning of one by the other... but, I don't agree that it does have to imply that. I understand the complications quite well, I just happen to disagree. As for the argument that doctrinal beliefs of Islam make this title wrong by definition I would have to disagree. While I agree that most (a hugely massive majority) do not agree with terrorism, there is not something known as Islam that we can compare to terrorists who claim to be Muslim and then say that they were not. Everyone has the right to interpret Islam as they like and we then report it... the vast majority view (which you stated) should take precedence in most articles but we cannot say that other views are "not Islamic"... many Muslims may claim they aren't and we can report that... but to say "any so called Muslim who commits offensive terorrism is not a Muslim" is something that we could not do. I do see your concerns about the title and I just prefer Islamism to Islamic... and I don't really mind the title... I'm not opposed to something else, I am just not sure it's necessary... but I am sure blanket statements about what Islam says should not be used as arguments or placed in articles here... I have talked about this with Brandon before... and, uhh... I don't think he listened ~_~ gren 04:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree. BrandonYusufToropov 16:11, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

General Confusion

Correct me if I am wrong, but I beleive Islam is the religion Muslims practice, and an Islamist is something that practices Islam. Why can't we just say Muslim Terrorism? It does have a different connotation, but wouldn't it be simpler and less confusing? (to people like me)

No. A person who practices Islam is usually called a Muslim. (The word exists in that same way in Arabic. Other languages use "Mussulman", etc. BTW Muslims abhor "Mohammadan".) "Islamist" is a pretty recent label for people who follow a political ideology--usually the ideology based the writings of people like Syed Qutub, Maulana Maududu, etc.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 02:34, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

It is extremely POV to discuss "Islamic terrorism". "Terrorism committed by Muslims" if you must. Even "Islamist terrorism" is very dodgy, given that not all Islamists by any means are in favour of using terror to gain their ends. Grace Note 06:09, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Did you read the article? The term is commonly used. You are accusing anyone who has used it for whatever reason, including most of the Western media, of being "Islamophobes". Jayjg ^(talk) 06:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Jay, I look at fights like this and wonder a) what on earth you're trying to accomplish b) how on earth to respond.
• It's not like you don't know terms like "Christian terrorist" or "Jewish terrorist" would be radioactively POV, so I can only assume you're trying to distract someone into launching a revert war on another page trying to incorporate such terms, and perhaps then seek some kind of benefit, known only to you, from the ensuing chaos.
• The thing is, though, I would never, ever do use such term,s because a term like "Jewish terrorist" is patently offensive and loathsome to me.
• As a matter of fact, if you look at the history of the disputes you and I have had on these kinds of issues, you will never find any slander of the Jewish people, or any other group, in any of my edits.
• Our whole discussion is about cleaning up piles of, shall we say, debris that you heap on Muslims (as Muslims, not as individuals).
• You ask me to accept edits that say my religion (not any individual practitioner, but the faith itself) is inherently terroristic.
• You ask me to accept edits that say my religion (not any individual practitioner, but the faith itself) is inherently fascistic.
• So I give up. You're clearly a very intelligent person. You know how to hold clear discussions about important issues. Why don't we get to the core question. Why do you want to write these things about Muslims?
• I'm not asking about what is commonly used, commonly said, commonly "known" about Islam. I'm asking about you. Why is it so important to you to impart this view of my faith to the world? BrandonYusufToropov 13:10, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

No responses to you Brandon, until you indicate good faith in some more tangible way. You know what I'm waiting for. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

What he said though. Discuss the term in the body of the article. Discuss uses in the media and cite it. But putting it in the first line is setting the tone, Jay. You know that. I feel you try to poison the well in articles like this by inserting a POV upfront. Why? Why not be as neutral as possible in presenting the article's subject, and then begin presenting both sides' poison in the body of the article? Grace Note 02:55, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

And I might add that you are not supporting the argument that wide use of a term should substantiate our using it in Jesus, concerning "BC/AD". I don't mind your claiming that you are editing on principle, but it must be the same principle for the every article, surely? Grace Note 03:02, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

You are making a broad unsubstantiated claim, that anyone who uses the term "Islamic terrorism" is an "islamophobe". You have not brought any justification or source for this claim; moreoever, it seems to tar huge numbers of people with that label. For example, according to you version of the article, PBS are islamophobes:[1], as is The Economist magazine [2], as is Salman Rushdie [3], etc. I personally think people should use the term "Islamist terrorism", but is absurd to claim anyone who happens to uses "Islamic" as opposed to "Islamist" is an Islamophobe simply because you prefer the latter term; more importantly, it is a violation of the WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Cite your sources policies, since you have worded your opinion as incontrovertible and unsourced fact. As for the usage of BC/AD, I fail to see the parallel; in fact, if anything, the parallel goes the other way. I'm not claiming that people who use the term BC/AD are "Christian supremicists" or "culturally insensitive" or any other such broad label, I'm simply saying that BCE/CE is academically preferred and more neutral, which are indeed good reasons for using "Islamist terrorism" over "Islamic terrorism" as well. If you want to move the Islamic terrorism label down into the article, and discuss its alternative usage there, and why people don't like it, that's perfectly reasonable; but to simply claim that "Islamic terrorism" is only use by Islamophobes violates Wikipedia policy and is simply wrong. Jayjg ^(talk) 09:43, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I think you've at least seen the point. Grace Note 23:39, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, not really. If you have an issue with a section of an article, the answer is to fix the problem, not introduce new ones. And I never understood your claim that I was "inserting a POV upfront"; I inserted nothing in the article, but rather deleted your obvious POV. I shouldn't have had to, if you cared about policy at all you would never have put it in to begin with. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:00, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

The answer is to do what works, Jay. We now have an article we're both happy with. You want to continue bickering about "policy", please indulge yourself, but please don't expect me to join in. Grace Note 05:38, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Islamofacism

The word has been used in the article before, not as a direct reference to Islamist Terrorism, but as an article of interest of those who want to read up on the entire issues of terrorism. What happened this morning is that a user by the name of Spastika took the word out, called it a POV. I reverted it, since nearly everything he did was reverted because of his possible pro-Arab pov pushing. I am not sure when the word was added to the article, but all I wanted to do is bring it back to a previous version. Zscout370 (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Do not use links to instill POV. BrandonYusufToropov 15:11, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

As said before, I was reverting an edit made by a vandal, which removed the word. I am happy to work with yall on trying to reach a consensus on inclusing of this link at the end of the article. Zscout370 (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Do not use links to instill POV, Jay.BrandonYusufToropov 23:53, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Can you expand on that, please. I just want to know why could be it be considered installing POV by adding the link. Zscout370 (talk) 02:10, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I have explained why on your talkpage. There is no connection between the Islamists and fascism except that some rightwing commentators in the West (and Nick Cohen) call them fascists. The link is being included in my view to legitimate a POV about the islamofascist page. Source the link and I think the objection will disappear. Of course, I'm confident you cannot. Grace Note 08:59, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Here is an article from a website called Faithfreedom.org. It compares between Islam and the Facsism movement, but from what I read, this has a huge anti-Arab POV. This one, is an article from Joseph Sorba, who is challenging people on how the term is actually defined. The other websites that even discuss the term are just blogs, which I stated earlier at the Islamofacism. Zscout370 (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I know you're not advocating this, but if faithfreedom.org is the standard we adopt for NPOV, this encyclopedia is in a great deal of trouble. As for the likelihood that Islamist movements are actually fascist, see the messy debate at Talk:Islamofascism. BrandonYusufToropov 18:03, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

You win. I will drop it. Zscout370 (talk) 18:05, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

The Faithfreedom article is very misguided to be fair. It has to be a worry for the pro-concept crowd that that's the best that can be found. The site it appears on is virulently antiMuslim. The Sobran article describes it as a "bogus label". "Islamofascism is nothing but an empty propaganda term." Indeed. Grace Note 23:21, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I do agree that the first website I posted has a huge anti-Arab POV. Hell, this website says that Muhammad was a pedophile, rapist, murderer, etc. The second site, I know it is a blog, but it does pretty much say to those, like Rush Limbaugh, to define the term. And other than Limbaugh and a few blogs, I do not see anywhere notable or respectable this term is used. As I mentioned earlier, I will drop the subject, will not add this word, since from what I am feeling here, the consensus is not to add the word. Now, I will take this off my watch list, but if you guys still need anything, just let me know on my talk page. Zscout370 (talk) 00:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Islamist being replaced by Islamic

Noitall has been replacing Islamist with Islamic despite the template and the many discussions that have taken place on this page. I expect his changes will be reverted soon as he has not even sought out a discussion on this page to explain his edits.Yuber^(talk) 01:54, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The term that is widely used in the West, which is what this article is about, is Islamic terrorism. The article describes that Muslims prefer a different term, which is appropriate and accurate. Even if the term is inaccurately used by the west, it is still the term that is used. As in many Wiki articles, the primary editors have a POV. This is contrary to Wiki policy. In addition, it is Wike policy to not simply do a reactionary rv revert just because you dislike one edit. Doing the reactionary revert is vandalism. Do not do it. My edit improved the article without a POV.

--Noitall 02:02, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Western media outlets also use such terms as "Israeli-occupation", but using that term in this encyclopedia is very contentious.Yuber^(talk) 02:07, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The purpose of Wiki is to describe the term that is used. Wiki reflects the usage and anything else is an improper POV. It is also proper to describe any objections that others in the world have with a term used, but not to change the term used.

--Noitall 02:11, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The term "Islamist terrorism" is also very widely used in the west - even by Islamophobes like Daniel Pipes. I hope you have a better argument than that to offer. - Mustafaa 02:15, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Islamic terrorism" is, technically speaking, a contradiction in terms, which is one reason why there has been resistance on this. ("Divine serial killer" has about the same level of credibility to me.)

The fact that there are several thousand Google hits on the phrase "holocaust myth" does not mean anyone, anywhere, is justified in attempting to pass an article with that title off as factual. BrandonYusufToropov 17:07, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Request for Assistance

Asking for assistance regarding Administrator Mustafaa and editor Yuber:

Regarding the page and edits to Islamic Terrorism, Administrator Mustafaa acts as the police to this page to ensure that his biased POV is inserted. He was called in by Yuber to revert my edit, which was balanced, an improvement, and entirely without a POV (as are all my edits). They worked to team up to ensure that only their biased POV is inserted. Mustafaa then blocked me, in the process breaking many Wiki policies. Basically Mustafaa ‘s reactionary vandalism and his act of blocking me was an act of Wiki terrorisim.

Yuber has been cited before for violating 3RR policies, now the editor teams up with Mustafaa to continue violating 3RR policies.

Administrator Mustafaa broke many of Wiki policies:

1. Abuse of Administratorship: Most important is that Mustafaa has an obvious POV and abuses his Administratorship to ensure that his POV is inserted into his favorite articles.

2. Edit Abuse: Mustafaa (and Yuber) made a reactionary rv revert of the entire article instead of simply making one simple correction, the only correction that they disagreed with.

3. Edit Abuse: Unlike what they stated, there has been no previous discussion of this issue. The only previous discussion concerned their own sensitivity to the term. The term “Islamic Terrorism” is the term used by the West and it is the term being described. I provided a source (and there would be tens of thousands of sources, because this is the proper term in the West. I accurately described the dispute that some Muslims have over a term used in the West.

4. Violating blocking Policy: Use of blocks to gain advantage in a content dispute, and self-blocking to enforce a Wikiholiday or departure are specifically prohibited. Likewise, users should not block those with whom they are currently engaged in conflict.

5. Violating blocking Policy: logged-in users with a substantial history of valid contributions, regardless of the reasoning for the block should not be blocked.

6. Violating blocking Policy: the 3RR policy is not to be used to deal with vandalism as mine was of Mustafaa and Yuber vandalism.

7. Violating blocking Policy: Mustafaa made no warnings, he just wanted to protect his POV.

I believe that I have made significant contributions to Wiki and I very greatly object to 2 people teaming up to block me out of the system so that they can insert their POV.

These people are doing a real disservice to Wiki, and I can think of no worse vandalism than they have done:

I think Administrators like Mustafaa are dangerous for Wiki, especially when they are so willing to violate Wiki policy to insert their POV.

So, I would appreciate any information and assistance you can provide to Noitall. Thank you.

--Noitall 04:22, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

The editors of this page are so scared that their POV might be edited, they even try to delete talk pages. Amazing. --Noitall 04:45, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it was Inglemoo that took out your POV rant [4], not the "wiki-terrorists".Yuber^(talk) 06:02, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Using Islamist is not a POV issue. The article already describes the use of the terms Islamist and Islamic, and explains why both are used. As I Westerner, I can say that Mustafaa is quite right in insting that Islamist is also frequently used. (In fact, a google search for "Islamist terrorism" no less than 52,400 hits.) Thus, describing the phenomenon as Islamist terrorism rather than Islamic terrorism is not 'chang[ing] the term used'. If we explain the alternative terms in the article, then choosing one of the several available words is not an issue. →Ingoolemo← ^talk 04:37, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

By the way, 'reactionary reverts' are not vandalism. Vandalism is very narrowly defined by Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Vandalism), and however strongly one disagrees with an edit, disagreeing with it alone is not enough to classify the edit as vandalism. →Ingoolemo← ^talk 04:37, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

I've reinserted Ingoolemo's post (above), deleted by Noitall (talk · contribs) upon reposting his rant which he crossposted at User talk:Mustafaa, User talk:Noitall, User talk:Davidcannon, User talk:SlimVirgin, User talk:Sam Spade, User talk:Jayjg and even Wikipedia:AMA Member Statements. — mark ✎ 07:17, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let me address the issues you all have brought up. A 'reactionary revert' is when muliple people with an obvious POV object to 1 WORD of my 64 word edit and revert it instead of modifying it appropriately. This is clearly contrary to Wiki policy. In addition, no one, at least those on this page, mentions the merits of my complaint above (in fact, they tried to delete it). And I did not delete anything on any talk page (I was the one who complained about it), it was Yuber and others. Yuber has done this, perhaps many times, before. And as for complaining and asking for assistance, I will leave it to others who I complained to to let me know if they do not want to address the issue. Finally, in (finally) addressing the issue (that before I was blocked was not addressed on any talk page), I provided a source (and I could have provided thousands) for the Western use of the term "Islamic." "Islamist" is not used in the West, partly because it sounds bad, and maybe it is used incorrectly. But "Islamic" is the term used. The term and the notion is not used in the "Islamist" or "Islamic" world, take your pick. Further, my edit was a very balanced edit that even highlighted the controversy of the term. If someone who edits this page actually considered my edit with any objectivity at all, they would believe that it was a good edit (all 64 words, not just the 1 that they objected to). --Noitall 13:27, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

1. A 'reactionary revert' may be against Wikipedia policy, but that does not make it vandalism, and it does not give the reverted user any right to revert again.
2. Though your complaint does mention some things about the editing of this page, it is limited to a fraction of its paragraphs. The bulk of the post deals with Mustafaa's alleged abuse of adminsitrator privileges, and should be placed on the RFC or discussed through the dispute resolution process, not here.
3. Islamist IS used in the West, ubiquitously. "Islamist terrorism" receives 52,400 google hits (see above), which is smaller than the hits for "Islamic terrorism", but demonstrates that the phrase is frequently used in the West.
   This debate is about which term Wikipedia should use. Though policy prefers the most common name, I would argue that Islamist is a more accurate term, and should therefore be the one we employ. As the statistics show, we can safely choose Islamist over Islamic without causing any confusion.
4. I am inclined to agree with some of the text you wished to include:

   It is a term principally used by Western news reporters, politicians and academia to describe the causes of the [[terrorist]] attacks against the [[United States]] on [[September 11, 2001]] and its aftermath, including the conflicts in [[Afghanistan]] and [[Iraq]] and March 11, 2004 bombings [http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/03/11/madrid.anniversary/] at [[Madrid, Spain|Madrid]]'s railway station.

   I think it's inappropriate to eliminate all of your edit. However, your assertion about who uses the term is not backed up by any sources. I would like to reinsert it, but the controversy surrounding the edit makes me wary about reinstating any of it. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that it cites no sources.
5. I'm disinclined to accept your statement that the concept of Islamist/Islamic terrorism is unused in the Islamic world until you cite a source on the subject.
6. Your edit did not actually highlight the controversy around the term. Rather, it stated who uses the term, and did some minor rewordings in the section that related to the controversy.

→Ingoolemo← ^talk 21:00, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

Ingoolemo, I appreciate the fact that someone will address my edits. I make no claim that my edit was the perfect edit, only that I believe it made it somewhat better. I wandered into this page without knowing the militant people involved and what would happen. Actually, I could accept the one word disagreement and accept a loss, but I can not accept what happened in this instance or the practice of militant editing to insert a POV (and it was and is to insert a POV). Let me just mildly correct your one statement that I did not highlight the controversy. I changed a header of the entire topic from the weirdly undescriptive "What kind of terrorism?" to "Contentiousness of the Term "Islamic". I believe that was a big highlight.

--Noitall 21:26, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

I't like to point out the google search of Islamic vs. Islamist.... that will have some influence on the search results of Islamist terrorism vs. Islamic terrorism... just point that out.... gren 19:57, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have changed the heading to read 'use of Islamist versus Islamic', because I agree that the original did not describe what the section discussed. →Ingoolemo← ^talk 21:36, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

Responding to a lengthy series of comments on my Talk: page, I will make two comments:

1. I agree with Ingoolemo that some of Noitall's text was perfectly NPOV and cited.
2. The fact that "Islamic terrorism" is by far the more popular term (4 times as popular as "Islamist terrorism", with 197,000 Google hits to 52,500) indicates that there is something amiss in this article. As I recall, in the past, even including the vastly more common term "Islamic terrorism" as an alternate in the intro was responded to with POV inserted in the intro as well insisting as fact that only Islamophobes use the term. Wikipedia policy indicates that the most common name for something should be used as the article title; the fact that not only is the phrase not used as a title, but resistance to it even being included in the introduction, indicates that Wikipedia policy is not being followed. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:00, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"we need to temper common usage when the commonly used term is unreasonably misleading or commonly regarded as offensive to one or more groups of people." (from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)) That seems to me to be the case here. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps this applies to the naming of the article itself, but doesn't it also apply to having any reference to it in the opening paragraph? Remember, regardless of objections to it, it is by far the more commonly used term, and is used by many neutral news sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:41, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that Noitall also moved the article to "Islamic terrorism" without even saying why. His edits were disruptive and he clearly violated the 3RR.Yuber^(talk) 16:15, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The text "It is a term principally used by Western news reporters, politicians and academia to describe the causes of the terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001 and its aftermath, including the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq and March 11, 2004 bombings [5] at Madrid's railway station" is, at best, not especially helpful; the term was in use at least a decade before 9/11, and "the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq" are not typically described as "Islamic terrorism", though the acts of the insurgents might be. I don't strongly object to that text, but I don't see that it's particularly worth keeping either. As for the name of the phenomenon, both "Islamic terrorism" and "Islamist terrorism" are widely used in English, while the latter is more exact and more common in academic circles. The latter is therefore preferable. - Mustafaa 18:56, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please see my question regarding its mention in the intro, above. Also, what do you think the statement about Daniel Pipes using "Islamist terrorist" adds anything to the article? If so, what? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:41, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RFC on 'Islamic terrorism' vs. 'Islamist terrorism'

My strong preference is for 'Islamist terrorism' for the reason that 'Islamic' refers to anything to do with the religion of Islam, whereas 'Islamist' refers to Islamism which is sometimes known as 'Political Islam' and is a political ideology. Terrorism is by definition a political act and therefore it is more appropriate to relate it to the political ideology that drives it, rather than to an underlying religion. This would be a POV assertion that Islam leads to terrorism, or may lead to terrorism, which isn't appropriate. It is the politics which leads to terrorism. David | Talk 21:03, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Excellent, entirely pertinent points. They have, you should be aware, been made dozens, if not hundreds of times here. Somehow, editors with strong preconceptions have found various rhetorical strategems for sidestepping each and every one of the points you just made. Perhaps it won't happen this time. Just to recap, though, so as to avoid the most common stratatem (i.e., ignoring the points you just raised):

• 'Islamic' refers to anything to do with the religion of Islam. 'Islamist' refers to a political ideology.

• Terrorism is a political act, and thus more appropriately related to a political ideology than to an underlying religion.

• The assertion that Islam leads to terrorism, or may lead to terrorism, is POV; politics leads to terrorism. BrandonYusufToropov 21:32, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

David, your points are interesting, but I don't think particularly relevant to the issues raised. The main issue here is of common usage and Wikipedia policy. As has been pointed out above, the term for what is being described (whatever you think of its merits) is must more commonly "Islamic terrorism" than "Islamist terrorism"; the Google test says it's 4 times as common. Now, it has been argued that if a term is offensive, then common usage might be avoided, which would be an argument for the article name being "Islamist terrorism"; however, that still wouldn't explain why any mention of the alternate (and, in fact, vastly more common) term would be forced out of the introduction. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:07, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My understanding is that the principal point being argued here is what title the article should be under, not the exact wording of the introduction. If we're in agreement on the title, do you have some alternate suggestion for the introduction's wording? - Mustafaa 22:11, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I raised two RfCs, one on the title, and one on the introduction. Regarding the introduction, it had a perfectly good and neutral one which had lasted from Aug 7, 2004 [6] to May 10, 2005 [7], but then on May 11 User:Grace Note decided that anyone who used the term "Islamic terrorism" was de facto an Islamophobe.[8] I pointed out to her that her edit was a violation of Wikipedia:Cite your sources and WP:NPOV, and that many neutral sources used the term, but to no avail:[9] In the end removing the term entirely from the intro seemed a better solution than leaving such obviously POV in, especially when the opposition was so adamant and appeared to care little for policy in this case. Nevertheless, the solution is hardly satisfactory, that by far the most common term for this phenomenon cannot even be mentioned as an alternate because people have very specific POVs about what the term might mean. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:22, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what counts as a neutral source (and sources can be neutral but insensitive or ignorant). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:32, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

PBS and The Economist are respected and neutral enough sources. Suffice it to say, they're not Islamophobic. I don't know how you'd classify other sources, like The Australian [10] or The Christian Science Monitor [11] or The Sunday Times [12] or The New York Post [13] or The Free Muslim Coalition [14] or dozens of other sources. Whether or not they are "insensitive or ignorant" is a POV, but that doesn't really impinge on the fact that, as I've said before, by far the most common term for this phenomenon has been forced out of the introduction, even as an alternate. This smacks of POV-pushing to me. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:03, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Surely this is not a case of simple Googling to find which term is used more often. NPOV always trumps that form of argument anyway. In any respect this is a case of a popular usage which is technically incorrect, as for example MI6 which is a redirect to its correct name, Secret Intelligence Service. Mel Etitis is right (further above) to refer to the naming policy. Also, would you accept that the Provisional Irish Republican Army be described in an article entitled Christian terrorism or Roman Catholic terrorism? David | Talk 22:57, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly how "NPOV" trumps this. NPOV is about expressing all significant POVs, not deciding on the one "correct" POV. More importantly, you are assuming that there is one "correct" name for this phenomenon, "Islamist terrorism", and one "incorrect" one "Islamic terrorism". It's hardly the case of an organization having an official name and a popular name. In fact, there are two terms for this, and one is objected to by some people, but is still the most popular one and is used rather freely by many other perfectly reasonable sources. As for Christian terrorism, I'm not sure I understand the relevance; we're talking about commonly used terms here. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:11, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would summarize this differently: there are two terms, one of which is more exact as well as more neutral, but, being a relatively recent (mid-nineties?) coinage, is not yet as widely used as the older term. Both precision and neutrality trump the Google figures, as far as I'm concerned; David is right on target when he talks of "a popular usage which is technically incorrect". - Mustafaa 23:17, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In your view the term may be more "precise" and "neutral", but that certainly doesn't trump Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wow, pretty good and rational discussion! (with the exception of Yuber who it seems everyone seems fit to ignore). Some terms are extensively used by (relatively) unbiased media sources in the West. And those terms are not used in other societies, mostly for the contentious reasons stated or because they do not fit with other cultural views, and excepted when describing Western attitudes. I think "Islamic terrorism" is one of those terms. I believe that westerners have heard by now from their leaders that Islamic terrorists are a small subset of the overall islamic population. The term is not contrued by any Westerners as differing in any way from the term Islamist, only Islamist is not nearly as widely used. The word Islamic is used by Western media sources as a shorthand to describe the war on terror (which term is just as contentious, perhaps more so among Westerners). But the discussion is a good one however it turns out.

--Noitall 22:52, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Though I do not agree with Jayjg that we should use Islamic, I strongly support his suggestion that the alternative Islamic terrorism be mentioned in the first sentence of the article, and that it be explicitly noted that Islamic is the more common usage. Anyone who reads further will then learn why Wikipedia uses Islamist instead. I'd do it myself, but this is a contentious topic. →Ingoolemo← ^talk 23:44, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)

I have not said we should use Islamic; that was Noitall. I have questioned whether the current title is in line with policy, and protested the fact that the more popular term cannot be mentioned as an alternative in the first sentence without its use being attributed to "Islamophobes". Jayjg ^(talk) 04:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would accept Ingoolemo's proposed solution. --Noitall 00:10, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

I would be fine with mentioning the term Islamic terrorism in the first sentence. Perhaps "Islamist terrorism, commonly termed Islamic terrorism, is..." - Mustafaa 00:19, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Puzzlingly, there's already an Islamic Terrorism article, that seems particularly odd. I would suggest merging that here, to begin with. Now, if the problem is that we have to respect general - if perhaps misguided - usage as well as remain NPOV, why not redirect from Islamic Terrorism here? And I dont understand why it needs to be in the first paragraph at all. Will someone at this page, more familiar with the other term, say 'hang on, this isnt what I wanted at all. this is ISLAMIST Terrorism'? Seems unlikely, if they have a smidgen of commonsense. So, if we are agreed that islamic t. is inaccurate or POV, then there's no need to mention it at all, once there's a redirect from that page for the poor confused, misguided newbies. Hornplease 05:45, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Islamic Terrorism article is a duplicate of this article. There is currently a revert war between the creator of the content and the user that wants to keep it as a separate article. →Ingoolemo← ^talk 06:23, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)

OK, now that Ive look at everything more closely, it still seems that it shouldnt be a separate article. Replace islamic t with a redirect to islamist t, and avoid all mention of islamic t in the introduction, either as an alternate title, or as a disclaimer. if it isnt completely accurate or NPOV - and compelling arguments can be made for either - why use it at all? If the only reason is because its a common term and people may be confused, then we've already avoided any possible confusion by putting in the redirect. If the reason is that its a common term and we want to mention that its a common term, I dont see the point. Will someone navigate to the page saying, "I know what Islamist terrorism is, but I want to know another common phrase for it thats somewhat inaccurate and POV"? Hornplease 07:15, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Inglemoo's rephrasing of the introduction. However, noitall keeps re-inserting his POV.Yuber^(talk) 22:12, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is there any decision on guidelines for this? When I was studying political science in university, the general guidelines used for distinguishing islamist vs islaic was the former was in reference to the acceptance of violent or radical change through means outside of an existing political structure, i.e. terrorism, revolution, etc. the later, Islamic, was used in reference to the political will of instigating Sharia through the existing political structure. I found this discussion page when noticing the use of Islamist in defining the rise of political islam in Bahrain. Islamist is used throughout articles discussing Islam, Political Islam, and Radical/Fundamental Islam. While some may consider this pedantic, it's important to provide a clear distinction between politics within an existing power structure and politics working outside of these power structures. (Dynamicoverlord (talk) 19:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC))

Accusation of vandalism

Yuber gets an award: The editor has started his one millionth edit war! Yuber only knows how to insert his POV in articles, and only by reverting. Even worse, Yuber vandalizes pages, even User pages, see [[15]]. Many others have cited Yuber and there is an effort from many others to ban the editor from Wiki, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Regarding this particular edit, anyone, even those with whom I have disagreed before, with the exception of Yuber (who is bad for Wiki) are free to edit my modifications to the Introduction. --Noitall 22:32, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

You could've saved all that time and just called me a wiki-terrorist like in your first rant ;).Yuber^(talk) 22:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Don't attack other users, especially in section headers. Much of your message is fantasy, of course, and I can't imagine that anyone will take it (or, consequently, you) seriously. Your peculiar statement that Yuber isn't allowed to edit tops the whole thing off perfectly. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:48, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I simply provided the facts, including Yuber's vandalism. I have no connection, and was not even formerly aware of, all the other vandalism that Yuber has done. I have no idea whether this is true, but others have accused Mel Etitis of being a sock puppet for Yuber. Focus on the harm Yuber does to Wiki and not the messenger. --Noitall 22:54, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

I've reported you for a violation of 3RR through your anon address. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:00, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good Mel Etitis. In Wiki, we can only prove stupidity and ignorance through our writing and actions. I hope that Wiki can trace the addresses for your benefit. I do not do anything in secret (if anything, I have been accused of informing too many people of the vandalism of Yuber). Keep up the good work! --Noitall 23:21, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

In further response, Mel Etitis, please note my specific statement with my original edit. I specifically stated that anyone else but Yuber (who is a vandal) may edit OR REVERT my edit. I only reverted vandalism by Yuber. I would not have reverted any other edit, even by you. --Noitall 00:11, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Like it says at the bottom of the edit window: "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it." - Mustafaa 00:18, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No one owns articles, and you have no authority to dictate who may edit your contributions. Yuber did not engage in vandalism, he engaged in a revert war, in which you have just as much complicity as he does. As I have stated before, vandalism is very narrowly defined by our vandalism policy, and so-called 'reactionary reverts' are not included in this definition. → Ingoolemo ← ^talk 00:24, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

A "revert war" by anyone else would be just that and I might agree with you (although I believe contrary to Wiki policy). But there is an extraordiary amount of evidence that [User:Yuber] is a vandal, see the proposed ban at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Providing assistance to a vandal is not something that furthers Wiki or improves articles.

--Noitall 00:44, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Noitall, you have reverted this article more than Yuber has and you basically revert everytime he makes a minor edit. Secondly, you have done nothing but make personal attacks against other editors. Frankly, I don't know where exactly Yuber inserted his POV and you haven't proven it in any way. Lastly, what Mustafaa said above about editing is absolutely correct so stop crying and complaining. --Anonymous editor 09:27, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the "Verdict of the Koran" section

I find it highly disingenuous to have this section present - there are numerous problems with the section as it stands.

1. - the section is not referenced, and counts as original research. This is not allowed.
2. - the verses presented as being against terrorism are themselves mansukh and inapplicable to modern Islam, except where taqiyya and kitman are being practiced.

Enviroknot 04:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is fully referenced, actually, with verse numbers and commentary names. Your (unsourced) claim that these verses are abrogated contradicts the most widely used Tafsir, Tafsir Ibn Kathir, as well as the observations of most scholars. As-Suyuti only recognizes 21 cases of abrogation, and Shah Waliullah reduces this to 5 ([16]). - Mustafaa 17:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"often thought" vs. "some believe"

Regarding the edit war about which way to describe those who think the term "Islamic terrorism" is a "smear against Islam", from what I can tell they both contain weasel words. It's impossible to measure whether it is "often", "sometimes", or "rarely" thought to be a smear, and similarly it is impossible to measure whether "most", "many", "some", or "few" believe it to be a smear. I propose that accurate non-weaselish terminology be used instead, something like "but it has been objected to by those who consider it a smear against Islam." Thoughts? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can't see any weasel words in any of the versions, just vagueness (and what's wrong with being vague if vagueness is the best that can be done?). vagueness is only weaselish if it's intended to deceive, and I'm not sure why you think that that's the case here. Your proposed replacement, though, is in the same mold as "This will be liked by people who like this sort of thing". Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:24, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anytime you stray into "some","often" etc. type of wording regarding people, especially if you are not basing it on the results of an authoritative survey, you are in uncited claim/weasel word territory. I'm not wedded to my specific wording, but I'm looking for something that is accurate. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's not the usual acceptation of the term "weasel word", which involves intention. Even the Wikipedia article accepts that generalsiations aren't always unacceptable. We know, in this case, that "Islamic terrorism" is considered by a number of people to be offensive, but we don't know how many; the two possibilities are to make a vague and general statement and to refuse to mention the fact simply because it's not precise. The latter is surely unacceptable — that leaves the former. If we were trying to hide the fact that it's only we who consider it offensive, then it would be weaselly — but we're not, so it isn't. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:27, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would consider its inexactness to be more relevant than its offensiveness. - Mustafaa 17:35, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that Jayjg's suggestion regarding wording is the best that has been given here. If this suggestion isn't accepted, however, 'some' is the next best option. Unlike other vague words regarding number, 'some' does not commit to any sort of proportion. It is thus neutral, albeit uninformative. Ingoolemo ^talk 19:08, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

Agreed. violet/riga (t) 21:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't see "intent" as relevant; the weasel words exist, and we should try to be as accurate as possible. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see no consensus here, yet Yuber and his socks keep pushing the phrasing "many" back in. Reverting it though I bet his sockpuppets will show up again. Enviroknot 00:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Um, socks? One of the users you cite is an admin, and the other is a well-established user with more than a thousand edits. Ingoolemo ^talk 05:37, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

Mel ... words fail me

Mel engaged in a revert war (causing a 24 hour block as punishment) over "but some believe it to be a smear against Islam" versus "but it is often thought to be a smear against Islam".

Words fail me, Mel. Might I suggest "Sorry, I was awake for 48 hours straight. Thanks for the block, as it helped me to admit my Wikipedia addiction. I am now in a 12 step program for Wiki-addicts, and my first step is to say sorry to those I hurt. Sorry." 4.250.201.44 23:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Verdict of the Qu'ran

This section badly needs help. The Qur'an is a primary source which wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is not in the position to say how it should be interpretted. An overwhelming majority of mufassir and fiqah may agree but that does not make it the verdict of the Qur'an. Times change and how people interpret it could go back to killing is good, and that is what should be reported. Christian interpretation has changed a lot over time. The "verdict of the Bible" between 1400 and now would be immensely different. (good analogy?) In any case we need to make this section referenced by what important Muslim scholars say (and hopefully not subpar online sites) and possibly their notable scholarly critics. The Qur'an only says what its interpretters believe, and that is what wikipedia does, it reports that, it doesn't say "what Muslims should believe" but what they do. gren 28 June 2005 05:45 (UTC)

Most interpreters would agree with the anti-violence approach (know this through practice), but yes, it might need to be mentioned that some interpretations have a different approach although it is usually not within regard to the specific verses mentioned. Usually you would find political reasons, not religious even though some groups cite that and use various other verses as a different interpretation. The section does need some polishing, though. Thanks.--Anonymous editor June 28, 2005 05:53 (UTC)

So you are saying that certain aspects of the qur'an don't benefit the development of islamic terroism? Come, whether you like it or not, it is only fair that islam's intolerance has to be a contributing factor terrorism. Why do most islamic nations have a horrible track record for human rights? Why is the Sheriat barbaric? A nation where stonning to death is ok for something as stupid as having children outside marriage is better place for development of terrorism, than a nation that at least aims to build a society where people's right and liberties are protected. Anonymous Reader August 3, 2005 22:23 (UTC)

• A scholarly interpretation, backed up with references, would work much better, but at the same time, there's not a lot of doubt what a spiritual text is going to say about terrorism. Peter Grey 7 July 2005 23:11 (UTC)

---

Why muslims have no choice but to hate infidels

My muslim brothers, if you wanna be a true muslim, you dont have much of a choice.

[Chapter 33 verse 36]

And it is not for a believer, man or woman, to have any choice in their affairs, when God and His Apostle have decreed a matter: and whoever disobeyeth God and His Apostle, erreth with palpable error.

[33.36] And it behoves not a believing man and a believing woman that they should have any choice in their matter when Allah and His Apostle have decided a matter; and whoever disobeys Allah and His Apostle, he surely strays off a manifest straying.

No matter how nice those lovely infidels are, do not under any circumstances befriend them (unless you wanna go to hell).

[Chapter 3 verse 28] Let not believers take infidels for their friends rather than believers: whoso shall do this hath nothing to hope from God unless, indeed, ye fear a fear from them: But God would have you beware of Himself; for to God ye return.

[Chapter 4 verse 89] They desire that ye should be infidels as they are infidels, and that ye should be alike. Take therefore none of them for friends, till they have fled their homes for the cause of God. If they turn back, then seize them, and slay them wherever ye find them; but take none of them as friends or helpers

[Chapter 60 verse 1] O YE who believe! take not my foe and your foe for friends, shewing them kindness, although they believe not that truth which hath come to you: they drive forth the Apostles and yourselves because ye believe in God your Lord! If ye go forth to fight on my way, and from a desire to please me, and shew them kindness in private, I well know what ye conceal, and what ye discover! Who so doth this hath already gone astray from the even way.

And if you absolutely hate violence, do the violent act anyway because it is good for you even if you find it absolutely revolting. Remember, God knows what is good for you.

[Chapter 2 verse 216] War is prescribed to you: but from this ye are averse. Yet haply ye are averse from a thing, though it be good for you, and haply ye love a thing though it be bad for you: And God knoweth; but ye, ye know not.

It's okay to kill your fellow citizens, even your next door neighbours, if you are doing God's work.

[Chapter 9 verse 123] Believers! wage war against such of the infidels as are your neighbours, and let them find you rigorous: and know that God is with those who fear him.

[9.123] O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).

[Chapter 66 verse 9] O Prophet! make war on the infidels and hypocrites, and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their abode! and wretched the passage to it!

AND FINALLY, dying for Allah is the greatest bliss

[Chapter 9 verse 111]

Verily, of the faithful hath God bought their persons and their substance, on condition of Paradise for them in return: on the path of God shall they fight, and slay, and be slain: a Promise for this is pledged in the Law, and in the Evangel, and in the Koran and who more faithful, in to his engagement than God? Rejoice, therefore, in the contract that ye have contracted: for this shall be the great bliss. Ohanian 14:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

List of "islamist" terrorist incidents"

I've removed this list completely. For heaven's sake, just because an incident involves an Arab or Palestinian doesn't make it "Islamist". The list was obviously compiled by people who know nothing about Islamists or about middle east history. For example, the PLO is not an Islamist organization. The Libyan government (Lockerbie) is not "Islamist" . --Lee Hunter 11:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

"We know only one word: jihad,jihad, jihad.When we stopped the intifada, we did not stop the jihad for the establishment of a Palestinian state whose capital is Jerusalem. And now we are entering the phase of the great jihad prior to the establishment of an independant Palestinian state whose capital is Jerusalem...We are in a conflict with the Zionist movement and the Balfour Decleration and all imperialist activities." --Yasser Arafat, Chairman of the PLO (During an October 21,1996 speech at the Dehaishe refugee camp)

Lee Hunter Stated: "the PLO is not an Islamist organization". Lee Hunter was incorrect. See the definition of Jihad. The leader of the PLO at the time stated that they, as a group, only know one word. Jihad. This indicates to the PLO is in fact Islamist.

Islamist is defined on the Wikipedia page as "Islamist terrorism is terrorism that is carried out to further the political and religious ambitions of a segment of the Muslim community."

A Jihad is a religious ambition. Terrorism conducted by the PLO, or any other Muslim group that intends to participate in the Jihad (which is technically just about all of them) are thus Islamist. The definition ALSO includes "political" ambitions. This completely blankets Basayev's actions and many other pocket islamic groups that are willing to murder civilians and military personnel for their cause.

I hereby move to disregard Mr. Lee Hunter's input henceforth, and to replace the list. You are not exercising any level of neutrality whatsoever, and either your ignorance or your agenda are showing through your words and actions.

From Jihad: "The Arabic word "Jihad" means "to struggle" or "to strive." In as much as Jihad is a struggle, it is a struggle against all that is perceived as evil in the cause of that which is perceived as good, a cosmic and epic struggle spanning time and all dimensions of human thought and action, and transcending the physical universe. Muslims often do not refer merely to "Jihad" but to Jihad fi Sabilillah (Jihad in the Cause of Allah)." Using the word "Jihad" does not make one an Islamist. Note also that the list included at least one incident by the PFLP, a marxist-leninist organization. --Lee Hunter 18:13, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

If the list contained a PFLP listing, it should have been singled out for removal. I never saw the original list so I cannot verify the truth of Lee Hunter's claim. I have to doubt his word because of his incessant banter over word definitions and inclusions to a certain group that we're calling "Islamist". For the definition listed by the article, PLO fits directly, and unquestionably into the fold. Yasser Arafat himself had his hand in Black September through Fatah. See the wikipedia entry for Black September if you are unfamiliar (And I would imagine that you are if you are still presuming to have an ounce of credibility after DESTROYING the work of another editor and waving some kind of nonexistant banner proclaiming that your removal was justified because of one wrong entry).

To give you a chance to make your point... what form of Jihad do you think Yasser Arafat was talking about, sir? I point you to http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article?tocId=9368558 ... the accredited, Britannica definition of Jihad. A leader who orchestrates the capture and killings of innocent victims to use as political leverage, and claims only to know Jihad, would be implementing Jihad of the Sword, undoubtedly. Or do you somehow disagree? -JX

The original list [17] contained the Maalot Massacre which was a PFLP operation. Black September (Munich Massacre) was partially made of members of the PFLP. Re. what Yasser Arafat was meaning by "jihad" who knows and who cares. I'm not an Arabist but it seems that "jihad" is a VERY common word in Arab political speeches - even secular Arab leaders like Saddam Hussein tossed it out like candy. Arafat was a Muslim with mostly Muslim followers so it would be astonishing if he didn't use that particular word on many occasions. That's the language that one uses to rouse the masses in the Middle East. Using "jihad" doesn't make me an "Islamist" any more than using "Crusade" makes me a Christian. Many Islamists hated Arafat - they thought he was totally corrupt. --Lee Hunter 19:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

THe Munich massacre was comprised of Fatah members, who are a wing of PLO, who are Islamist Terrorists. Since the PLO INCLUDES FATAH AS A MEMBER... the PLO is thus, an Islamist faction, regardless if they have "political wings" that happen to share a common goal (mysteriously wanting to make Palestine spread to the sea, thus annexing Israel entirely). Regardless of whether you want to proclaim that desire as a marxist-leninist goal, or an Islamic goal, it is completely unfriendly, and since the PLO is the organization to which some of these groups are tied, and their goal is STATEDLY TO RECLAIM HOLY LANDS, this makes ALL child organizations that share this goal are thus ISLAMIST or ISLAMIST SUPPORTERS.

See: Fatah -> http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Fatah

See: Black September -> http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Black_September_%28group%29 (listed as a PLO organization)

See: "The PLO closed Black September down in the fall of 1973, prompted, Morris says, by the "political calculation that no more good would come of terrorism abroad," (ibid. p. 383). In 1974 Arafat ordered the PLO to withdraw from acts of violence outside Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip."

Do you understand that the PLO sponsored terrorism in the past and continues to sponsor violence and terrorism against Israel and other nations that do not share their goals to this day?

The goal of driving Israel into the sea, of unifying Palestine over the borders of Israel and claiming the "holy lands" is innately an "Islamist" (and to some degree IslamIC goal). It has to do with Islam because the entire reasoning behind wanting the area is related to the holy sites and ownership of them.

See: "If you are asking me, as a man who belongs to the Islamic faith, my answer is also "From the river to the sea," the entire land is an Islamic Waqf which can not be bought or sold, and it is impossible to remain silent while someone is stealing it ..." -- Faisal Husseini (from the PLO wiki page)

For your benefit: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Waqf

That is not the only reference you will see that ties the goal of unifying "Palestine" with an Islamic agenda. If muslims did not exist, the people of the PLO and other various organizations would not have this same goal. They'd simply be secular citizens living in a portion of Israel and would not care in the slightest. If you believe the goal of liberating palestine from "river to sea" to be a secular one, you are a complete fool. Period. It's called an insurgency, rebellion, uprising (Fatah means uprising, even)... and it uses Islam as the central fuel to it's fire. The stated goals of the PLO are to unify "arabs". This is easily revealed as a front for their Islamic feelings towards this goal, and if it ISN'T, then they are BIGOTS.

So, if you really want to make a distinction for these forms of terrorism, you have 2 such options: 1) Islamist, and 2) Anti-Semetic

Since the same organizations strike both Jewish and Secular/Christian populations, one has to assume that they are Islamist goals. It's directly simple logic.

Drop your agenda, and let these articles be stated as WHOLE TRUTHS. OBSCURING FACTS is easily 95% of the reason that the conflict in the middle east exists. It would have been resolved if not for terrorist sympathizers/fact bunglers such as yourself.

-JX

You write "It has to do with Islam because the entire reasoning behind wanting the area is related to the holy sites and ownership of them." Huh? Are you seriously suggesting it has nothing to do with the Palestinians being driven into exile? That's quite an extraordinary claim. Like the Palestinians just wandered into the picture 60 years ago and decided to take over the Holy Lands. You are conflating so many issues, groups, races, parties, terrorists, countries, ethnic groups, historical events that I wouldn't know where to start in trying to untangle the whole mess. None of the links you cite provide even the slightest support for your position. Whether or not the PLO is "Islamist" cannot be established as a "fact". It is, after all, only a label and one can only offer an opinion as to whether the label fits. In the end, neither your analysis nor mine really matter. I've never seen any recognized authority describe the PLO as "Islamist". Hamas and Hizbollah, sure. The mere fact that some groups share a common language and some common goals doesn't make them both Islamist. --Lee Hunter 18:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I guess I have to break it down into real simple terms for you, and yes no questions. This is kind of sad, because you have the ability to form sentences with good grammar and vocab... seems like you wouldn't need it.

Here goes. Has the PLO ever sponsored terrorism in the past? Y/N? N? Incorrect. PLO claims Fatah. Fatah = Black September. Thus, the PLO has sponsored Terrorism.

Proof - Fatah was disbanded because the PLO believed that terrorism ABROAD was no longer going to produce good results. However, several other PLO organizations continue to use TERROR against Israel.

The world does not care what the Palestinian Liberation Organization thinks about the independence of Israel. The powers that be formed Israel as a home for Jewish people. They have their independence, and they are a sovereign state recognized by everyone. The PLO is not. The PLO uses terror against a sovereign state. This is most assuredly bad, regardless of how the exiled arabs from 50 years ago feel about it. Since they are unwilling to resolve with diplomacy... they choose to strap bombs to vehicles and kill civilians. This is bad. Not good.

Let's talk about labels and facts. When you argue that labels can't be factually attached to something, how do we describe what ... say... Milk is? Is Milk Milk in my opinion, or is it in fact, Milk? This is a retarded terms argument, and in real life, people who get into these should be slapped in the face and told not to open their mouths in the future.

Hamas and Hizbollah are definitely Islamist. Naming two other Islamist organizations does not make a third Islamist organization non-Islamist. Even if they have participated in peaceful negotiations, the fact that they have often used terror as a tool makes them Islamist, period. That's the definition we set forth, baby. That's what it's all about. The WHOLE discussion can be summed up right here:

"Islamist terrorism is terrorism that is carried out to further the political and religious ambitions of a segment of the Muslim community." Is PLO carrying out a religions ambition? Yes. Is PLO part of a Muslim community? Yes. Why? Do PLO members espouse Islamic beliefs? Yes, Frequently. Is Israel a sovereign state? Yes. Is the PLO? No. Does the PLO attack Israel? Yes, several PLO orgs do and have in the past. THIS MAKES THE PLO ISLAMIST, even if on paper they just happen to MAGICALLY hold the same desire for Jihad and conquest of the holy lands that other more directly up front groups hold, but hold that desire in a "secularized" fashion. It has slipped through the cracks too many times, and that's why the PLO is called Islamist and the attacks you removed were removed in error.

Just come on out and say "I want to prove a point that not all muslims are bad" and then get out of here. We all know that. People are trying to formulate a blanket term that they can use to describe the enemy who uses Islam as justification for his crimes against humanity. Quibbling over this term does not help good Muslims, it just causes them to get lumped in with the bad ones. So maybe your final goal is not a stupid one, but sir, you're fighting your battle on the wrong front. You should have left the list of attacks in place.

You write: " the fact that they have often used terror as a tool makes them Islamist, period. That's the definition we set forth, baby. That's what it's all about." Interesting definition. I would suggest that that's precisely not what it's about. The simple fact that someone has used terror as a tool does not make them anything other than "terrorist". You can be a terrorist without being an Islamist or a Muslim (e.g. the IRA are Catholic, the Tamil Tigers are Hindu, Shining Path are whatever). And you can certainly be an Islamist (someone who wants Sharia imposed everywhere) without being a terrorist. The article is titled "Islamist Terrorism". In other words, you have to be both a terrorist AND Islamist to qualify for the article. Being an Islamist doesn't make you a terrorist. Being terrorist doesn't make you an Islamist. The PFLP were Marxist-Leninist terrorists, you can call them "Islamist" if you like, but you're probably the only person in the world who has ever done so, which makes it "original research" and therefore does not qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia. It basically means you are completely redefining the meaning of both Communism and Islam. The PLO (don't forget that a fair number of Palestinians are Christian) has been basically secular (although some of the rhetoric is common to the Islamist camp and the pressure from Hamas and Hizbollah is maybe pushing it more that way). --Lee Hunter 03:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Lee Hunter, a quick list of facts (once more). (You can keep repeating yourself if you'd like, it doesn't change the facts.)

PLO was led by Yasser Arafat, who himself supported terrorist activities.

PLO consists of several groups that may or may not be Islamic, but all share the same goal.

PLO branches have used terror as a tool and these organizations have been SUPPORTED IN THIS USE OF TERROR BY PLO LEADERS.

The VAST MAJORITY OF PLO MEMBERS are Muslim. Source: Common Sense, The PLO page, and the fact that PLO-related terrorists have claimed martyrdom for their actions.

PLO Leaders espouse Muslim beliefs themselves (WITHOUT the external interactions of Hizbollah or Hamas). Source: See my links in previous replies.

Hamas and the PLO share the EXACT SAME GOAL except that Hamas would set up Sharia, while the PLO might not, and thus Hamas would also have the goal of conquering a PLO-governed Palestine in the event that they didn't govern with Islam in mind (though, I imagine they almost certainly would).

The PLO has worked with Hamas in the past through Fatah. (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Fatah_Hawks)

Honestly, that should be enough facts for anyone to clearly see that the PLO is Islamist in nature, due to their inherent support of Islamist goals. Even in the event that the PLO was magically changed into a CHRISTIAN MAJORITY organization that still wanted the liberation of Palestine and removal of Israel in such a manner... if they FUND AND SUPPORT MUSLIMS TO TERRORIZE THEIR ENEMIES, THEY ARE ISLAMIST.

Once more: Islamist terrorism is terrorism that supports an Islamic goal. Reclamation of a "waqf" is one of those. The PLO has used terrorism for this purpose, and at the SAME TIME its leaders have referred to the area as a "waqf". Furthermore, Fatah has worked to perform terrorism in CONJUNCTION with Hamas, who is very openly Islamist, thus making it obvious that PLO is either A) Islamist, or B) Islamist-supporting.

- JX

You seem be suggesting that any Muslim who uses terrorism is therefore an Islamist. You seem to think that the Palestinian goal of returning to their homeland is inherently Islamist. These are interesting viewpoints but, no matter how much you think the facts support your case, you are alone (or virtually alone) in holding this viewpoint. It is simply your unique and original conclusion based on your analysis of the evidence. Until you can show that this conclusion is widely shared by notable persons (i.e. historians or other experts on the Middle East), it cannot be included in an encyclopedia. --Lee Hunter 12:57, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

If this view were not widely shared, Israel would not have to plant cell-phone bombs on people and perform other various assassinations of the members of these organizations. Israel understands the goals of the people who live next door to it who are using ISLAMIC DOCTRINE as an excuse for the attempted invasion and annexation of their lands. It's completely obvious. I did not propose that a muslim who uses terror is an Islamist. I SUPPORT the premise of this article that terror enacted by a muslim who is supporting Islamist goals is Islamist Terrorism. Since the PLO was DIRECTLY involved with operations that involved an organization that YOU BROUGHT INTO THE FOLD AS AN ISLAMIST ONE (Hamas), that makes PLO either itself an Islamist organization (it is, I promise), or a group that openly supports Islamist groups. Therefore, terrorism conducted by any of the organizations associated with this organization would be certainly viable to be listed in a list of Islamist terrorist incidents, and FAILURE TO LIST THEM would be more of a risk of inaccuracy than listing them with an asterisk and saying "this group's political motivation may or may not be Islam-related". In the event that we can realistically surmise that Islam has something to do with the terror that these organizations proliferate, their terrorist actions should RIGHTFULLY BE LISTED.

Also, you say no other people see it the way I do? You are completely wrong. I'm arguing for the replacement of a list of events that you openly VANDALIZED. The original poster would undoubtedly agree with me, as would his source, et cetera, et cetera. -JX

I have never seen the PLO described as "Islamist" but you are telling me that this is an established fact. Perhaps you're right. All I ask is that you support your statement with the standard third party references that are required for encyclopedic information. Your analysis of what is "obvious" doesn't count. Other WP editors (including me) don't count. If you can provide reasonable sources I'll shut up. --Lee Hunter 23:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8CD3861B-3F58-49BA-9335-8E494C80E756.htm ... Hamas and Islamic Jihad = PLO members? Al Jazeera credible enough for ya? If not, feel free to thumb through the vast wealth of articles directly linking PLO to Islamist activities/statements. I'll help you: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=PLO+Islamist ... My analysis of "obvious" is the same conclusion anyone who has actually researched these topics for more than TEN MINUTES comes to. It's VERY OBVIOUS. That's not just my conclusion. Have fun riding around on your encyclopaedic high horse, though, it's very entertaining to watch people fall off of it when they ride into solid evidence. You should at LEAST try to research a counter-point to your own argument before you open your trap, if you know jack about being neutral. Shut up now? -JX

If you have a problem with one or two, discuss it, but don't remove the entire list! Why do you call the list "bogus" anyway? Barneygumble 13:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted back to my edits. Please read a history book before you start editing historical articles. The PLO as islamist organisation???? Good grief. Read the PLO article. The Lockerbie bombing as an Islamist attack? The attacks on military targets as terrorism? And why do you insist on putting the word "islamist" in very sentence. What's the point you're trying to make? That's why these lists are bogus. People dump all sorts of nonsense into them. I've even seen the Barbary pirates in a WP list of Islamist terrorist. Gaaak--Lee Hunter 15:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

What was the attack on the USS Cole, an Islamic welcome wagon? It was a Al-Qaeda production. Qaddafi supported pan-ISLAMISM [18], hence terrorist actions commited by his minions fall under "Islamist terrorism", and hence the inclusion of Pan AM 103. The Beurit embassy bombing was by Islamic Jihad. Al Qaeda was also behind the Khobar bombings. The PLO was defined as more Marxist than Islamist but they sure behave the same way. Nonetheless, I'll leave them out. Since the category is "Islamist", I removed repeated mentions of Islamist. Why include "alleged?" What more proof than claims of responsibility is needed? Barneygumble 16:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Huh? You pointed me to a link about Qaddaffi and pan-ARABism not "pan-ISLAMism (special note for the benefit of our US-based editors, an "Arab" is not the same thing as a Muslim). He is a Muslim. He does live in a largely Muslim country but as far as I know, he has only ever been described as an "Islamist" by certain WP editors with a very foggy view of the Middle East. Khobar was an attack on military personnel. "The PLO was defined as more Marxist than Islamist but they sure behave the same way." All those swarthy guys with guns, they're all the same. --Lee Hunter 17:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

From the Qaddaffi page. "He also supported pan-Islamism," however a navy brief says Qaddafi was opposed by Islamists [19], so if you want to remove it, go ahead. As for the PLO, is the Ma'alot massacre much different than the Hamas suicide bombings? Barneygumble 17:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't you think that list of supposed Islamists should contain Islamists? --Lee Hunter 17:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Attack on military target by non-military personell in an undeclared engagement is essentially terrorism. It doesn't qualify as a guerilla war, so what else is it? However, I'll agree to forgo it but you must agree to include the mob attack. A mob attacking church goers is unequivicably terrorism. The terrorism page has a bulleted list of 7 qualifications. That mob attack meets all 7. Barneygumble 18:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

You write: "A mob attacking church goers is unequivicably terrorism." you mean as opposed to a mob attacking another mob? or a mob attacking a police station? or a mob lynching black people? Mob violence is mob violence. How do you get terrorism out of that? Or is it a case of "Muslims were involved and there was violence so it must be terrorism."? --Lee Hunter 19:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The intentions of the mob comes into play. If the mob seeks intimidate and the motives are religious or political then yes, it is. So yes, a mob of Islamist militant attack a Christian church and killing people trying to escape is nothing other than terrorism. Barneygumble 19:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Funny, I always thought a mob, being an amorphous mass of people does not have an "intention" per se. I mean, isn't that why they call it a "mob" and not a "guerrilla group" or "gang" or "military unit"? Please cite your source for knowing the intentions of this particular mob. Also I've just done a search on the Web and can't find this incident - at least not as it is described in the list. I have to insist that you provide a source. --Lee Hunter 19:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

No, the KKK in their lynch mobs had no intention. They had no intention of scaring and intimitading blacks. None was so ever. Mobs don't have any intentions, that's right. [20][21], [22]

UN View of Terrorism

I started to edit this section and then realized it doesn't actually belong in this article as it doesn't speak to the issue of Islamist terrorism. The reason that Islamic or Arabic countries are resisting the treaty is because they feel that the Palestinians have a right to resist the Israeli occupation. --Lee Hunter 20:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I.e these objecting countires support terrorism. Klonimus 01:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

??

Civilization can only be saved when the last stone of the last temple falls on the last priest,rabbi or imam.I am not a communist.I believe in God.But I think religions didn't bring peace to people.They divided the people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.100.59.202 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 3 August 2005.

Umm, I made this a new section... I'm not sure I see the point but it's not part of the UN view. gren グレン 18:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

American POV

There are "641 000+ articles" in English provided by wikipedia whereas there are roughly 1,000 articles in Arabic. The U.S., England, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Singapore, and many more. Aside from Russia and China (who are pretty much neutral towards terrorism) These countries are the world powers. They decide the definition of terrorism (majority rules). These people are bent on the destruction of the "Great Satan" (U.S. and other Western countries).

• hey, rush, it's good to see that you've gotten over the whole pill popping thing

If you think I'm just quoting rush; forget it man. I think he's. . . well he's gone off the deep end. He obsessed with himself. But you were being kinda vague so I'm not sure I understand. (So I'm an Idiot)

Why were these attacks removed?

• 6/25/96- Khobar Towers, Saudi Arabia bombed. 20 dead, 372 injured.
• 12/21/88- Pam Am flight 103 bombed. 259 killed
• 7/14/85- TWA flight 847 hijacked. 1 killed
• 5/15/72- Ma'alot massacre in Israel. School attacked. 26 killed, 70 wounded.
• 9/4/72- Munich Olympics. 11 Israeli athletes killed

None of these were military targets. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

See the List of Islamist Terorist Incidents discussion, above. They were terrorist incidents but the PLO is not an "Islamist" organization. Maa'alot was perpetrated by a Marxist-Leninist organization (a long long way from Islamist). Khobar was a military target. --Lee Hunter 18:10, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Sentence Fragment

This is pretty minor compared to most of the other stuff discussed here, but there's a subordinate clause at the end of the second paragraph of "Terrorist View" which has no predicate. "These groups believe that suicide bombers, as martyrs to cause of Jihad against the infidels, and entitled to the rewards of jannah for their actions." Presumably an "are" is missing somewhere, but I'm afraid to edit it since I'm not an authority on the subject and don't know what the original author was trying to say for sure. I'm just TheTypoPatrol 17:34, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Scholars? Okay?!

Verdict of the Qu'ran

This section badly needs help. The Qur'an is a primary source which wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is not in the position to say how it should be interpretted. An overwhelming majority of mufassir and fiqah may agree but that does not make it the verdict of the Qur'an. Times change and how people interpret it could go back to killing is good, and that is what should be reported. Christian interpretation has changed a lot over time. The "verdict of the Bible" between 1400 and now would be immensely different. (good analogy?) In any case we need to make this section referenced by what important Muslim scholars say (and hopefully not subpar online sites) and possibly their notable scholarly critics. The Qur'an only says what its interpretters believe, and that is what wikipedia does, it reports that, it doesn't say "what Muslims should believe" but what they do. gren 28 June 2005 05:45 (UTC)

Most interpreters would agree with the anti-violence approach (know this through practice), but yes, it might need to be mentioned that some interpretations have a different approach although it is usually not within regard to the specific verses mentioned. Usually you would find political reasons, not religious even though some groups cite that and use various other verses as a different interpretation. The section does need some polishing, though. Thanks.--Anonymous editor June 28, 2005 05:53 (UTC)

So you are saying that certain aspects of the qur'an don't benefit the development of islamic terroism? Come, whether you like it or not, it is only fair that islam's intolerance has to be a contributing factor terrorism. Why do most islamic nations have a horrible track record for human rights? Why is the Sheriat barbaric? A nation where stonning to death is ok for something as stupid as having children outside marriage is better place for development of terrorism, than a nation that at least aims to build a society where people's right and liberties are protected. Anonymous Reader August 3, 2005 22:23 (UTC)

A scholarly interpretation, backed up with references, would work much better, but at the same time, there's not a lot of doubt what a spiritual text is going to say about terrorism. Peter Grey 7 July 2005 23:11 (UTC)

Do you not see the irony here or am I the only one? According to this guy scholars are the ones that make the decisions. According to this other guy somewhere down near the bottom of the list ( I can only cut and paste once) the people (of the religion) decide how the religion works (referring to Klu Klux Kristianity. They had their own Christian church). Soooooo, when slurring Christianity it's okay to use what the people say/do as evidence? And then when the tables are turned it's all about what the ESTEEMED, learned scholars say. What about what the people say. Yeah, you know who I'm talkin' about. The OTHER 95-99% (logical guess; but you get my point). What their holy book teaches is reflected by what the MAJORITY of people do. J-Long

Islamic/Islamist Terrorism

What's in a name? Terrorism is terrorism, plain and simple. The problem with people is that they don't want to see the truth for what it is--the majority of terrorist acts are committed by individuals/groups that use their Islamic beliefs as a foundation to justify violence. There's no pretty way to say that. If you truly want to be unbiased, quit sugar-coating Islamic terrorism and call it for what it is.

• You Said It!

I am not sure I would agree with your rhetoric but I think that sometimes the terrorism is by Islamic and not Islamist groups. However, I don't care enough to re-open the debate... which seemed to favor the current naming. gren グレン 17:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)