Eisspeedway

Talk:Islam and violence

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Seda gedik.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics

This wikipedia article shows apparent statistcs about the relationship between Islam and Violence. Those statistics have two main points (actually a third one, which I could not check).

The first is about an article of Professor Fish, in which he states that he conducted some regressions which apparently show that "more Muslims means less homicide". While this is true and absolutely in agreement with the original source (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/01/27/why-is-terror-islamist/), the article at the very same time states that Islamists are responsible for 70% of all terrorist deaths (according to Fish): "In a recent book I reported that between 1994 and 2008, the world suffered 204 high-casualty terrorist bombings. Islamists were responsible for 125, or 61 percent of these incidents, which accounted for 70 percent of all deaths." Now, when I add this paragraph, it gets repeatedly deleted by user GenoV84. Why? One cannot simply cite some parts from the Fish article and ignore the other parts. Ignoring this statement by Fish means that one cherry-picks those information pieces from the article that support one view. This is called propaganda.

The second is about an apparent comparative statistical analysis of the Qu'ran by Tom Anderson (https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/violence-more-common-bible-quran-text-analysis-reveals-a6863381.html). Anderson's analysis is highly superficial, as he states himself: "I must also reemphasize that this analysis is superficial and the findings are by no means intended to be conclusive. Ours is a 30,000-ft, cursory view of three texts: the Quran and the Old and New Testaments, respectively." When I add this information, it gets likewise deleted, by the same user. Moreover, a more detailed version of the analysis is given here (https://www.prweb.com/releases/odintext/textanalysis/prweb13172048.htm). When I add this further information, e.g., "The concept of ‘love’ appears most often in the New Testament (3.0%), significantly more than in either the Old Testament (1.9%) or the Quran (1.26%).", this is likewise deleted. Why? As a scientist, I'm appalled by the subjective and one-sided information that this wikipedia article spreads.

I reverted your edits because you continued to delete sourced content and replace it with your personal commentary instead of improving the content of this article. I don't know what this issue is all about and I didn't write that stuff anyway, previous editors did. Take your threats somewhere else and start to collaborate with other editors respectfully instead of harassing them as you did on my Talk page. All I did was revert your edits, because they didn't seem to be constructive, and warned you on your Talk page to stop doing that because this is the standard procedure according to the guidelines of Wikipedia: revert and warn whenever an editor makes a mistake. That's it. GenoV84 (talk) 05:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How do you judge my additions not to be constructive? On what basis? I just added information from the original articles that wasn't represented in the respective section of this Wikipedia page. I did not change any word from the original articles. Prof. Fish tries to explain Islamic terrorism and discusses a few hypotheses, e.g., sexual frustration and frustration with the West. I exactly reproduced his argumentation. I wonder on what basis you would believe that I'm adding disruptive material, when you are apparently not even familiar with the original article. That's really a shame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IslamIsPiece (talk • contribs) 05:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a shame that you keep wasting my time and continue to harass me on my Talk page despite the fact that I reverted your uncivil comments more than once after I told you to behave respectfully towards other editors. I don't care what this source is all about and it's not my problem, I followed the guidelines and did what I had to: revert disruptive edits. Any other editor would have done the same thing. GenoV84 (talk) 05:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have said everything I had to say. You still miss backup for your claim of "disruptive edits" and "personal commentary", but I assume you have none, so the matter is resolved from my perspective.
The history of this article includes your reverted edits, did you know that? Anyone can check and compare the different versions before and after your disruptive edits. The evidence is right there. GenoV84 (talk) 06:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know very well about the version history. I deleted the section once - **after** you had classified it already as disruptive (which it obviously wasn't). Strange enough, your claim of "personal commentary" has disappeared now ...
Quite the contrary: it was your personal commentary. That's exactly one of the reasons for which I reverted your edits, along with the fact that you are not allowed to disrupt Wikipedia in order to illustrate a point, as you did multiple times. That's also part of the guidelines, and part of the reason for which your edits were reverted. GenoV84 (talk) 06:18, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since I am a scientist (and you are not), I know what personal commentary is. So please explain "personal commentary"
"I am a scientist (and you are not)".....

If your intent was to make me laugh, congratulations! You did it. Everybody is welcome to edit and improve Wikipedia, regardless of their professional status or degree. You seem to assume quite a lot about other people's lives, how do you know if I am a scientist or not? Do you have any evidence to backup for your claims about me and my personal life? GenoV84 (talk) 06:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My judgement is based on your apparent misunderstanding of what "personal commentary" is. I make you an offer. If you are a scientist, let's exchange our names. I can give you an email address (not my official one), and we take it from there. I'm an Associate Professor at a prestiguous university in Europe. If you are the same, please let's exchange.
  • "I am a scientist (and you are not)".... And you have a Nobel Prize to prove it, don't you?
  • The admin Oshwah suggested us to cool down and I told you more than once to follow the rules. The last time that I reverted your edits the discussion was still open and consensus hasn't been reached yet, therefore I have to acknowledge the fact that you deliberately refuse to listen and continue to edit the article even though the aforementioned admin also warned you for edit warring.
  • Despite the fact that I suggested you to stop harassing me by posting personal attacks, threats, and uncivil comments on my personal Talk page multiple times, you continued to do so regardless of my advice, the ongoing discussion, and the admin's intervention.
  • "I make you an offer. If you are a scientist, let's exchange our names. I can give you an email address (not my official one), and we take it from there." Asking another person to dox himself by releasing his personal informations and e-mail address in order to "make a deal" is a totally inappropriate behavior and ridiculous thing to do on the internet, and a potential violation of WP:PRIVACY on Wikipedia.
  • From my perspective, it doesn't really matter at this point what that source says or what you "have to offer", because you have nothing to offer and the source is not the main reason for the beginning of this discussion, my warnings on your Talk page are, because from that point on you kept escalating with your aggressive and disrespectful behavior towards me along with your complete disregard for the WP guidelines. What really matters here is your behavior towards me and other users on Wikipedia: everything that you did in just a few hours is unacceptable, and proves that you are clearly WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. GenoV84 (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Date" material needs better formatting

Barraista: 1) The material you added may be okay for this article, but it has to be formatted properly. Lots of small sections with dates as titles is not acceptable. Look at other, similar articles to see what an encyclopedic format looks like. 2) Make sure the sources identify the Islam religion (not just people/leaders who happen to be Muslim) as related to the violence 3) Some of the material may be better in the Islam and terrorism article. This article here Islam and violence is more of a top-level article (see WP:Summary style for more info). --Noleander (talk) 23:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help in this? You seem to have experience.}Barrasita (talk) 23:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I dont have a lot of time, but I can try to give you some ideas. I put the new material in a page here: Talk:Islam_and_violence/NewMaterial so it can be there while you work on it, and get it ready. The first thing I would do is change the names of the sections to be the name of the event being described, not the date/year. Then, see if the material is already discussed in another article in WP, and if it is, put a "see also" link at the TOP of the section (under the title, before the main text starts). Also, re-read the sources and make sure they talk about Islam or the Qur'an ... if the sources just say the person is a Muslim, that is not enough to be in this article. --Noleander (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


1) The dates ae prior to WW2, before the modern phenomenon of what we call now: "terror attacks" - came avout. the dates involve either Islamic movement with violence as a theme. 2) violence in the name of Islam like mentioning Islamic calls during the massacres, or Islamic massacres in a clear attempt to Islamize a region (like Moplah massacres). In any case, violence by a religous leader, by an ISLAMIC SUPREME BEING like the Mufti is already "Islamic." 3) I just added some of the material with a clear introduction of the 'holy war.' It ias all under that section. Also the caliphate dimension to the terrorism section.Barrasita (talk) 04:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure sources are good quality

Barrista: make sure the sources you use are "reliable" .. see WP:Reliable sources for details. Academic and scholarly works are best. If a particular issue is raised by a Christian source, that is okay, but in that case there should be a second, independent source that talks about it and refers to the Christian source. See WP:Secondary source for details. Please double-check your sources you recently used, it looks like many of them are not quite good enough. The material may be okay: but you need better sources. --Noleander (talk) 01:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a couple of weeks, and the material is still not adequately supported by sources. So I've removed some of it. There are three big problems:
1) Some of the sources are informal religious blogs. Sources need to be more reliable, see WP:Reliable sources. Academic sources are best.
2) Much of the material describes violence that is perpetrated by people who happen to be Muslim, but the sources do not state that the Islam religion is at the root of the violence. The sources must say something like "The violent act carried out by person X was motivated by Islam's religions doctrine Y". If the sources do not say something like that, it cannot go in this article. If you think it is "obvious" that the violence was motivated by Islam, then it should be easy to find academic sources that make that assertion.
3) The format is ugly. Please refer to the WP:Manual of style for how the text should be laid out.
--Noleander (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking at the revision history, there's a lot of information removed, it only needs to be rewriten and improved.Blitzland (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it needs to be re-written and improved. Also, some material may not be appropriate for this article. The rule that has been established by consensus for all the "religion and violence" articles is: the sources must make a direct association between violence and the doctrines of Islam. It is not enough that a person who committed a violent act just happened to be Islamic. And it is not acceptable for the editor (you or me) to make the association. Also, newspapers and blogs are generally not satisfactory sources (see WP:RS). Try to stick with academic books and articles. If a topic is suitable for this article, you should have no trouble finding academic sources that describe the topic. If you cannot find academic sources, that is a good indication that the material is not really suitable for this article. --Noleander (talk) 18:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I edited Barrasita's material, but removed 'deadlinks' and reference to faithfreedom.org as it might not be such a RS. As well as some items not so obvious related to violence derived from Islamic nature/spirit/text/ideas.

What I did reposted with alterations in formatting and adding the ISAM-ic natute includes: Muhammad's followers in Islam's early days acting for his honor/sake, Muslims using Islamic themes, Quranic text or/and ideas, mobilized forced conversions, attacks by Islamic religious athorities often explained with declaration of clear 'Islamic' goals, violence with a clear subjucation of Dhimmitude / infidels status, [regarding the massacres in early Islam in Spain, during frictions, Christians and Jews were dehumanized and referred to as apes and pigs, a Quranic inspired idea.[1].Blitzland (talk) 13:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you blitsland, now please search for suleika affair, i will leave it to you as you write better than me. cheers.Barrasita (talk) 14:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

World domination (Caliphate) is derived from Islamic Quranic source

Word Usage

Caliph is translated from the Arabic Khalifa (خليفة ẖalīfä) meaning "successor", "substitute", or "lieutenant". It is used in the Qur'an to establish Adam's role as representative of Allah on earth. Kalifa is also used to describe the belief that man's role, in his real nature, is as khalifa or viceroy to Allah.[1] The word is also most commonly used for the Islamic leader of the Ummah; starting with Muhammad and his line of successors. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CaliphBlitzland (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blitzland: Can you provide some quotes from the sources that shows that the material belongs in this article? For instance, can you supply some quote that has the phrase "world domination"? Also, can you provide quotes that relate to violence (killings, attacks, etc). Also, can you provide a quote that links the violence to the doctrines of Islam? If the source do not directly involve violence and Islam, perhaps the material is better in Islamic terrorism or Criticism of Islam articles? --Noleander (talk) 16:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I wasn't aware that you are not so knowledgeable about the Islamic 'Caliphate' concept, it is 'world domination.'

Al-Qaeda chiefs reveal world domination design (theage.com.au The Age 2005-08-24) [...] Phase five will be the point at which an Islamic state, or caliphate... http://www.theage.com.au/news/war-on-terror/alqaeda-chiefs-reveal-world-domination-design/2005/08/23/1124562861654.html

Obama has (also) linked Caliphate to Islamic terrorism (violence?) / goal. {from the text in the article):

The terrorists are at war with us... They kill man, woman and child; Christian and Hindu, Jew and Muslim. They seek to create a repressive caliphate. To defeat this enemy, we must understand who we are fighting against, and what we are fighting for.http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/the_war_we_need_to_win.php

It is under "terrorism" section.Blitzland (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any academic sources that say something like "Terrorists are using Islamic concept of Caliphate to perpetrate violence ..." or "The Qu'ran describes the caliphate, and that concept has been used to motivate violent attack X"? Remember: (1) Because these "religion and violence" articles are so controversial, we really need top-quality sources, not newspaper articles, or primary sources. and (2) the sources must explicitly associate the doctrine of the religion with the violence. (Also, in the Obama quote, I see no mention of Islam at all ... am I missing it? ) --Noleander (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the article Caliphate indicates that it is simply a system of government, used to rule Islamic countries. There is mention that some terrorists want to use violence to restore a caliphate, but there is no mention of "world dominance", nor is the notion of caliphate inherently violent. True? --Noleander (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Caliphate is exclusively MUSLIM! An Islamic concept. quote: "The threat is from violent extremists who are a small minority of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims... They kill man, woman and child; Christian and Hindu, Jew and Muslim. They seek to create a repressive caliphate. To defeat this enemy, we must understand who we are fighting against, and what we are fighting for." The point is that violent Muslims use violence towards Caliphate as a puritan-Islamic ideal rooted in the Quran as quoted above. How about The Age link I quoted above?

From the book: Islam and liberty: the historical misunderstanding G - Reference, Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series by Mohamed Charfi, Patrick Camiller. Published by Zed Books, 2005 (ISBN 1842775111, 9781842775110):

In 1994 the Algerian Armed Islamist Group (GIA), which is well known for its radical positions and the barbaric violence of its operations, announced the restoration of the caliphate and the appointment of a caliph... http://books.google.com/books?id=lxxjHjiZo68C&pg=PA104

Times Online - July 27, 2008

A third of Muslim students back killings ALMOST a third of British Muslim students believe killing in the name of Islam can be justified, according to a poll... The research found that a third of Muslim students supported the creation of a world-wide caliphate or Islamic state. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4407115.ece

From the book: Islam and liberty: the historical misunderstanding G - Reference, Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series by Mohamed Charfi, Patrick Camiller. Published by Zed Books, 2005 (ISBN 1842775111, 9781842775110):

In 1994 the Algerian Armed Islamist Group (GIA), which is well known for its radical positions and the barbaric violence of its operations, announced the restoration of the caliphate and the appointment of a caliph... http://books.google.com/books?id=lxxjHjiZo68C&pg=PA104

From the book: Title The Theory and Practice of Islamic Terrorism: An Anthology

by Marvin Perry, Howard E. Negrin. Publisher Macmillan, 2008. (ISBN-9780230608641) Page 199

Make no mistake about it: They are sacrificing their men, women, and children for this goal of world domination. They are willing to bring about an Armageddon to conquer the world to Islam

http://books.google.com/books?id=nto7GuBdUCgC&pg=PA199

From book History upside down: the roots of Palestinian fascism and the myth of Israeli aggression Brief encounters by David Meir-Levi. (Publisher Encounter Books, 2007

ISBN-9781594031922) pp. 39-40

Hamas... well known as a self-defined religious-apocalyptic terrorist group whose foundational documents preach genocide and world domination by the military and religious forces of Islam. In Arabic, Hamas means "Zeal." In Hebrew, Arabic's sister language, the same word means "violence." ..one Islamic religious Caliphate... http://books.google.com/books?id=1pLi3Cy8uQkC&pg=PA39

From book: Perspectives on violence and violent death Death, value, and meaning series by Robert G. Stevenson, Gerry R. Cox. Publisher Baywood Pub., 2007 (ISBN 0895033135, 9780895033130, In its introduction: "This book examines violence. It looks at the nature and types of violence, the causes of violence, and the emotional wake left by violent episodes. In the twentieth century, the world experienced two world wars and countless other wars. Many millions died violent deaths from murder, death squads, purges, riots, revolutions, ethnic cleansing.")

From: pp. 83-4

Restore the Islamic Caliphate: The Caliphate refers to the restoration of the messengers of the Prophet ... as a response to perceived moral decay caused by Western political and social influences, the extremist components in both sects (Shia, Sunni) believe that a return to Islam and the Quran as the Word of God is the only way to revive Islamic civilization and combat the threat of foreign influence... [2] reasserting the goal of Muslim's to expel the foreign dominators and restore traditional Islamic order... "[Muslim] Brotherhood"... dedicated to reinstating the Caliphate [3]

(Note: Claiphate = Allah's rule on the earth, see at the beginning of this discusson) Book: Living with Terrorism by Steven C. King. Publisher AuthorHouse, 2007 (ISBN 1434338436, 9781434338433). Page 109

Recruiting for Jihad... speaks about becoming a “Shaheed” (suicide bomber), and on its Jihad page states: “Islam also trains all those who volunteer for service to Allah before allowing them to undertake jihad (sic) and establish Allah's rule on the earth.' http://books.google.com/books?id=gud-BwjsQXEC&pg=PA109

Point is: I support it to be under 'Islamic terrorism' as a cause, derived from an Islamic concept (Allah's rule on earth). I wasn't suggesting that the entire concept of Caliphate is inherently violent. but as a motivation used by violent Al Qaeda and Hamas.Blitzland (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ From the article "Khalifah" in Oxford Islamic Studies Online

New material is not satisfactory

[edit]

Blitzland/Barraista: The new material does not seem to have remedied the numerous defects identified above. I'd hate to revert it again, but you need so spend more time and remedy the shortcomings. Let me give a few examples:

  • Blogs are not acceptable sources for controversial topics like this; for example you use the source [4] which is a blog
  • The wording must be more like an encyclopedia: you cannot write things like "There are tales of unspeakable barbarism"
  • Some of the material merely involves Muslims, but does not involve the Islam religion. One example of many is in the 1943 section, the source [5] has no mention of Islamic doctrines or religious texts. Don't forget: it is not enough that the violence be associated with people who happen to be Muslim: the sources must somehow associate the violence with the religion of Islam (its doctrines, leaders, or texts). That is the same policy followed in the other similar articles such as Christianity and violence and Judaism and violence.

This is the third time you have been told about these guidelines. Much of the material you are re-inserting for the third time without remedying the problems. Also, for the sources that are not available to other editors on-line, you may need to type-in some quotes from the source (here on the Talk page; or in a footnote) to help other editors understand if the material is appropriate or not. It looks like much of the material could be appropriate for the article, but you need to work on it more. If there was less material, I would volunteer to help fix it myself. Here is a suggestion: what if you just add the sections one at a time, and we can work together and fix them one one by one? --Noleander (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New material is satisfacory

[edit]

This is about Islamic Holy wars!!! Islamic Inspired, or theme embbeded.

  • Mufti was the ISLAMIC RELIGIOIUS authority. sanfransicosenmtinel speaks about the Mufti. Imagine a source that speaks of a war by the Pope, Besides from "Icon of Evil" book I quoted that the Mufti as a whole had a clear JIHAD on British, Jews, all Mufti related actions are under "holy war"
  • The only blog like is Melaniephillips, I can remove it.

---

Holy wars in Islam from its early days till post WW2, 622-1946

  • I will explain again: Explanations on material including the violence In Muhammad's era, the violence between 818-1184 Spain, as well as

all violence by Mufti's Jihad 1920-1943

  • Muhammad's followers in Islam's early days acting for his honor/sake.
  • Muslims using Islamic themes, Quranic text or/and ideas.
  • Mobilized forced conversions.
  • "Religious cleansing" campaigns to cleanse the area of non-Muslims. (For instance: "On 27 May 1914, the Muslims ordered that all Christians leave the town of Pergamum within two hours."[6]).
  • A) Attacks by Islamic religious authorities (such as Islamic cleric self-proclaimed prophet Muhammad Damoor in 1834).

(Also) often explained with declaration of clear 'Islamic' goals.

B) The grand Mufti (the highest religious authority in Islam dictating Islamic law and "who was given sole religious authority" [7]) waged a Jihad against the West and the Jews between 1920-1940.[8] especially a "holy war" against the Jews. [9] "Throughout his public career, the Mufti relied upon traditional Koranic anti-Jewish motifs to arouse the Arab street."[10] "Perhaps the longest-running jihad in today's world is the struggle to reclaim Israel for the Muslims... by the "highest ranking Islamic cleric." [11].

  • Violence with a clear subjugation of (the Islamic concept:) Dhimmitude (which justified/s violence: Islam and Dhimmitude: where civilizations collide by Bat Ye'or, 2002, p. 73) and/or infidels status, and violent crackdowns against rebellion of this status.

The Legacy of Islamic-Antisemitism pp. 46-47:

Various anti-dhimmi regulations became integral to the permanent “humiliation and wretchedness” prescribed for the Jews, specifically, by the Qur’anic curse of 2:61. Breaches of this regulatory pact (or “dhimma”) by Jews—whether real or perceived—could have disastrous consequences, including fully sanctioned jihad violence directed at them.

  • Regarding the massacres in early Islam in Spain (between 818-1184), during frictions, Christians and Jews were dehumanized and referred to as apes and pigs,[12] a Quranic inspired idea.[13]
  • Violence manifesting itself with a clear Islamic theme such as "killing for Allah" In the "name of Allah" (example: [14]) and "Allah Akbar" (example: [15] and [16]).
  • Violence triggered by Islamic clerics preaching in mosques.
  • Battles (which have been) described as Jihad or holy war.
  • Emerging of radical-Islamic movements - which take its roots from Muhammad/Quran - inspiring source for violence (example: Muslim Brotherhood).

Blitzland (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blitz: I cannot comprehend what you are saying above. Can you perhaps find an acquaintance that speaks fluent English, and have them work with you? I don' think you grasp what I am saying: there are many blogs (and informal web sites) you cite in the article, such as [17] and others. I don't have time to review them all one at a time. If you do not demonstrate an ability to grasp what a reliable source is, the material cannot be in this article. I've explained over and over what sort of sources are needed, yet you do not acknowledge that you understand. The burden is on the editor trying to add material to provide sources and show that it belongs in the article. I repeat my offer: Why not insert the sections one at a time so they can be addressed individually? --Noleander (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


What "other" blogs are you referring to (if usa-morocco is indeed a blog, it can be replaced, rest assured all their info is well-historically sourced here's one: [18])? Let me give you an example in English what do you think of the following: <bockquote>They were coming, thousands and thousands, shouting 'Allahu Akbar! God is great! Let us attack them for the Arabs, let us offer a holocaust to Mohammad!

http://books.google.com/books?id=6bEwc2FStIYC&pg=PA125

Why do you need an Islamic text always to justify a link by you or me, If Islamists USE Islamic themese text and ideas in order to qualify for Islamic Holy Wars? I am not saying that Islam neccessarily orders to do all those things, I am no Imam, I am writing on Jihad, Islamic "holy wars." as perceived by those carrying out the deeds. Please look again at my explanation above why they are connected to Islamic inspired violence. [unsigned by Blitzland]

(1) If the only sources you have are blogs and minor web sites, the material cannot be in the article. As you say, most important incidents have reliable books on them; so use the books, NOT the websites
(2) As editors, you and I cannot make the link between violence and Islam. See WP:Original research policy. Instead, you must find a reliable source (books by professors are best) that makes the link. The book should say somthing like:
"The attack was motivated by the Qu'ran's jihad principle.."; or
"The leader of the violence said he was motived by the Islamic principle ..."
... or something like that
If the person doing the violence just happens to be Muslim, that is NOT ENOUGH. That is the rule used in all the "violence" articles, and I have never seen any editor disagree with that rule. --Noleander (talk) 13:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

Dear Noleander, Do you prefer the dates to be formatted in bullets like this (example): *890 ?Blitzland (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using dates like that is not normal in Wikipedia. Better is using a phrase that summarizes the topic. Also, when the paragraphs are small, it is better to not waste space with dedicated title lines. So I would change it

From:

1031
A revolt in Morocco ...
1052
A massacre in Spain ...

To

Moroccan revolt - In 1031, slaves revolted ...
Massacre in Cordoba - In 1052, Islamic leaders ...

That will tighten up the text, and the boldface text will give the reader an idea what the paragraph is about. --Noleander (talk) 13:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cites need review

[edit]

Blitz/Bar: the citations are still wrong. I tried to check a few, and the FIRST one I tried was " Philippine gov't releases video of Abu Sayyaf atrocities | Asian Political News Newspaper | Find Articles at BNET". Philippine gov't releases video of Abu Sayyaf atrocities | Asian Political News Newspaper | Find Articles at BNET and it failed. Please review ALL the citations, and remove those that refer to blogs or minor web sites. --Noleander (talk) 13:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noleander I appreciate that, and fixed that link, with subsituting BBC pages, I also removed Barrasita's item about the 1886 Petach Tikva attack, because I can't connect it (with sources) to the Mufti or/and Jihadism.Blitzland (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re-name proposal?

[edit]

Shii: Did you want to propose a re-name for this article? If so, please do so on this Talk page. There is a lot of drama on WP, and the consensus process (especially for contentious articles) requires that we discuss significant changes. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 18:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right now there is a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judaism and violence that is discussing such a name change, I think it only makes sense that every article has the same format for its name. Shii (tock) 00:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you are saying. A few comments: (1) that AfD is still underway, and we should wait until it finishes; (2) I agree that (unless there is strong reason otherwise) all similar articles should follow a uniform naming convention; (3) In the case of "violence and religion" I believe the sources treat "violence and SomeReligion" as a topic independent from "peace in SomeReligion". In other words: the sources treat Violence and Peace topics separately, so the WP encyclopedia should reflect that by having two separate articles. There are virtually no sources that are about "Violence and peace in Islam" (even if there were 1 or 2 such sources, the "violence only" sources would vastly outnumber them), so I think we would be misleading WP readers by combining the two topics into one article. --Noleander (talk) 16:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable to me. On a completely unrelated note, I am amused that this article is part of Wikiproject Atheism. Shii (tock) 16:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Noleander that any major changes need to be discussed first. Incidently, who's put the "summary" stub on top?Blitzland (talk) 14:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shii's added 'lead' is on top of the page, In the 'cuurent holy-war' section, The Ayatollah, Laskar Jihad etc. have been split in order to see clarity.Blitzland (talk) 16:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to overcomplicate the name issue, I was actually a bit misled by this name. It's known that by far most Muslim violence has been against other Muslims, such as inter-tribal and sectarian wars. The Sunni-Shia variety is happening on a major scale in Iraq once again. And of course we have the Taliban. The Iran-Iraq war killed around half a million. The list goes on. In any case, I was expecting this article to discuss Muslim violence against other Muslims, not just Jihad against Jews and Christians. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Bias

[edit]

This article is incredibly biased. It speaks of world domination and antisemitism, but fails to point out the resentment Muslim youths feel towards the West because of the history of colonialism that has never ended. For example, the Grand Mufti used Islam to arouse youthful violence against Jews in WWII, but don't forget that Britain was occupying Palestine and force settling Jews on his home before his very eyes. Same with Iraq; it sided with Germany, but it was under British occupation after all, and it was only natural for Palestine and Iraq to do what they can to get independence. I'm sure you'll find that the Mufti wasn't the only one in WWII who went to extremities; there were massive civilians massacres on the part of the Allies too. The Mufti was just unique in doing so religiously, admittedly. However, religiously or not, you have to bear into mind the reasons that would drive him into doing those things, or more importantly, drive the hordes of others into supporting him.


Same with modern "world domination". Even among modern Mujahideen that is a very far fetched and rare concept. It's a dream they all have, but not all of them are willing to fight and go that far. You forget to mention how the United States toppled the democratic PM of Iran in 1953 (which caused the resentful Islamists to hold American hostages for 444 days in 1979 after deposing the repressive pro-American Shah), and helped Iraq against Iran in 1980-1988, and how Israel bombed Lebanon in 1982, and of course the good ole' Gulf War in 1991, and the sanctions that followed, plus all the spontaneous raids on Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Pakistan on the part of America and its allies. You realize that these things help distort the way Muslims view non-Muslims, right? If you notice, all pre-1982 Arab terrorism was nationalistic and secular, not Muslim. It only gained an Islamic vibe after the 1982 war and the failure of Arab nationalist governments to act. While the bloodshed caused by Muslims and Christians in Lebanon was way harsher, the fact that Israel took advantage of the weakened state of the country, and used advanced weaponry on a defenseless republic did turn Muslim opinion against them. Furthermore, let us not forget how the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq only increased terrorism globally. That in itself tells you something; the more Muslims perceive that non-Muslims are grouping up against them, the more they will feel an urge to believe what the zealots tell them. I think that in itself would be worth mentioning in the article in order to avoid giving a biased outlook. Propaganda works really well if accompanied by pictures of dead Muslim children on TV. That should really be mentioned. Oh, and Saddam Hussein was a secular. Some Gulf jurists called him an infidel/apostate, and justified getting infidels (aka, Americans) to bomb him, so it really works both ways. You can say whatever you want in public; some people will always buy it. He only used Islam to gather support, and someone tells me even claimed descendence from Muhammad. Religious propaganda is commonly used as a tool for gathering support, nothing more. It should be noted that many so called Muslim extremists were actually the furthest people from Islam. These include him and Yasser Arafat. Not every Muslim terrorist is an Islamist. An Islamist one would install a Sharia law after succeeding, which is not what the Baath and Fatah had in mind. I am a Muslim, and I would understand about the mentality of other Muslims. I've tried confronting radicals before, and they'd always bring up what Jews did in Palestine, or what America did in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Sudan, etc. In short, every generation of wars breeds more radical Muslims. Now these radicals will confront the West in a new war, and the West's retaliation will be even harsher, and the Muslim world will witness even more atrocities, and resentment will only get higher. In short, it's never going to end at this rate.


As for Khaybar, that story is unreliable and will never be reliable. Do not preach as fact about Muhammad that which is not proven. Normally when Muslim tradition portrays something positively, the article says "according to Muslim tradition;" so why doesn't it say "according to said source" in this article? All we have is a biography written 150 years after his death. Its author, Ibn Ishaq, got that information from descendants of the Jews in question. Muhammad never killed the other two Jewish tribes, he just expelled them. Why would he exterminate the third? The Hadith, too, was compiled generations after Muhammad's life but it uses a Sanad, or a list of narrators starting from Muhammad himself down to the person telling the author of the Hadith compilation about said Hadith. Ibn Ishaq never bothered with checking the authenticity of the Sanad for liars, hypocrites, drunks, insane individuals, and other possible imperfections. The character background and the reputation history of the person narrating a Hadith is very important in order for the Muslim jurist to actually believe it is part of Islam. But since this article isn't a Muslim one, it should be at least worth mentioning that the first source that describes a genocide of Jews by Muhammad came at least 150 years after Muhammad's death. UltimateDarkloid (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article needs a lot of work: it is just a mish-mash of various anecdotes, and is far from finished. If you have time, maybe you could help improve it. The things that are needed are:
  1. Remove anecdotes/material that is not related to Islam as a religion (i.e. if the participants just happen to be Muslim, and the doctrines of Islam are not involved, then it does not belong in this article)
  2. Add balancing information that gives context and perspective to the acts of violence
  3. Improve sources by finding more scholarly sources (many sources are mere newspaper articles)
  4. Improve format and layout to be more encyclopedic
  5. Improve grammar and wording to be more fluent (I believe much of the text was written by a person for whom English is a second language)
--Noleander (talk) 04:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I whole heartedly endorse any of these recommended changes and wish the best of luck to anyone taking on the article. It doesn't really tell us anything about what Islam thinks about violence so much as it lists any violence with a tenative link to Islam (or sometimes just Arabs and the Middle East). Any idea why this is under the Atheism project? Sol (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whataboutism! Stop excusing bigotry. 84.65.168.106 (talk) 23:50, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Colonialism, schomonialism. How else do you think Islam spread as far as it did? Largely by military conquests, i.e. imperialism. So Muslim youths whinging about Western imperialism is a bit hypocritical. 84.65.168.106 (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of the "Criticism of someReligion" articles and "SomeReligion and violence" articles are under the Atheism project (often as "Low" rank to indicate marginal association). Two reasons: (1) because many atheistic activists have written extensively on these "downsides" of religion (Hitchens, etc); and (2) the Criticism of religion article has "high" rank within the Atheisim project, and the other articles are sub-articles of that top-level article. --00:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


You said this: ""This article is incredibly biased. It speaks of world domination and antisemitism, but fails to point out the resentment Muslim youths feel towards the West because of the history of colonialism that has never ended."" I say: Pffft! You speak of colonialism as though Europeans are the first to do it! Muslims colonized all of North Africa and stole it from the Native Christian people there [and forced those Christians to convert], Muslims colonized the rest of the Middle East, Iran, Anatolia, and Central Asia aswell...Muslims ALSO tried to colonize Spain, Portugal, Southern Italy, Siciliy, and South Eastern Europe. So If anyone should be mad it is non-Muslims! Muslims were trying to conquer Europe for more than 1000 years after the death of Muhammad, it is only because of the technology revolution in Europe that the tables were turned, and Muslims got a taste of their own medicine for a change.. 107.222.205.242 (talk)

Proposal for new articles as repositories for the coatrack that used to be in this article

[edit]

I have moved the coatrack of wars to the article on Jihad. My rationale was that this article was too long (205kb at its max) and since Jihad already had a coatrack and so that article was the most logical temporary place to park the one that used to be here. However, doing that made Jihad too long (171kb) so we need a longer term solution. I have made a proposal here. Please look at it and provide your feed back at Talk:Jihad.

--Richard S (talk) 17:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try this analogy when deciding what to do about new article: the Klu Klux Klan existed in the American South at various times, but within recent memory in the 1920s through the 1950s. They were "quasi-legal." That is, the law enforcement officers denied any knowledge of what was going on (persecution of blacks), while sometimes being members of the organization, sometimes merely tacitly supporting. sometimes ineffectively countering this illegal group. When the northern papers reported a lynching, officers would "investigate" and find "no evidence." See, for example, Lynching in the United States.
Pretty much the same way today in Arab countries. The authorities deny terrorism exist, while sometimes participating in the organization. Some authorities may disagree, but ineffectually. Terrorism, which has gone on in Arab territories "forever" (since the 8th century, I guess), merely continues underground, supported by enough people that it is never effectually stopped. The terrorists are the Arab equivalent of the KKK. It should be documented someplace IMO. Student7 (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Qur'an and violence

[edit]

User:Al-Andalusi has suggested that the article Qur'an and violence should either be merged to Jihad or renamed. Given that both Qur'an and violence and Jihad are very long, I don't think a merger is a good idea. However, I do think there is merit in the idea of renaming Qur'an and violence to Qur'an and jihad or Qur'an and war. Please take a look at the discussion at Talk:Qur'an and violence and provide your input. --Richard S (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Early history

[edit]

An editor rm a summary of Islam's early history. The summary lacked references but seemed accurate to me, so I restored it with links and citation requests. What is inaccurate about it? Student7 (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. The WP:Verifiability policy requires that all material in all articles be verifiable, which means that a WP:Reliable source must be supplied, usually in the form of a footnote or citation. See also WP:Burden and WP:CHALLENGE. An editor's opinion (you or me or anyone) that material is "accurate" or "true" is not really relevant. The only exception to the source/footnote rule is for the top few paragraphs in an article, called the "lead" ... footnotes can be omitted there if the material is repeated below, in the bottom of the article, with footnotes. --Noleander (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the deleted material:
"Muslims have fought wars of conquest, citing religious justification, since Islam's genesis. Peoples who fell under Islamic rule after Islamic military conquest soon after Muhammad's death included provinces of the Byzantine Empire - first the fringe including Egypt, Assyria, and Palestine by the Arabs - and eventually the Byzantine capital itself by the Ottoman Turks; the Persian Empire; Sicily and Spain; independent kingdoms of North Africa; and the Buddhist and Hindu civilisations east of Persia.(cite needed tag)"
"Muslim societies have also been prone to fighting wars amongst themselves starting with the first generation of Muslims, including civil war between followers of a faction who included Muhammad's wife Aisha bint Abu Bakr, and followers of an opposing faction led by Muhammad's cousin Ali ibn Abi Talib, known as the Battle of Bassorah. Differences between Muslims also resulted in the murder of three of the first four Caliphs at the hands of other Muslims.[citation needed] Scholars disagree on whether such events and actions serve as affirmation or an aberration of Islam's teachings.((cite needed tag))"
These constitute a historical summary which I hope is not truly debatable. It is linked to Wikipedia articles. I do not have refs at my fingertips but agreed that it would be a good idea to have citations, despite the very credible links. It is usual to delete stuff which is incredible or debatable or WP:FRINGE. In which category is this? It seems to me that it is in the category of a summary which could await a citation for a little while.
What is wrong with the information, basically? What is your objection? If it is wrong in your opinion, I agree that it should be rm until cited. But if you are stating that it is right, but needs citations, I don't see why it can't stay for a short time until those are furnished. Student7 (talk) 20:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:Verifiability policy requires that all material be supported by sources. The material may be correct or not, but that is not the point. See WP:Burden. If you want to hunt for sources, you can "sandbox" this material in your own user page area until it is ready. --Noleander (talk) 17:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is to misread policy. Policy states "verifiable" not "sourced". Demanding all material be sourced would eviscerate the encyclopaedia. Rich Farmbrough, 11:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Scope of this article

[edit]

I think this article should follow Christianity and violence in content and structure: i.e. it should discuss Islamic attitudes towards violence, without listing every act of violence ever perpetrated by Muslims in the name of Islam. Most such acts can be covered under Islamic terrorism anyways.VR talk 02:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The scope that is more-or-less agreed-upon in Christianity and violence and Judaism and violence is:
  1. Citations are required for all material (WP:Verifiability)
  2. The sources of the material must discuss violence in relation to the religion (WP:No original research) ... the editor cannot make the association
  3. It is not sufficient that the perpetrators just happened to be members of the religion: they must be significant leaders and acting on behalf of the religion
  4. The sources must discuss violence in relation to the religions doctrines or texts.
--Noleander (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree but, at a minimum, this would suggest deleting or significantly truncating the sections "Attitudes towards Jews" and "Current holy wars" which appear to be laden with original research and synthesis. Any objections to going after these sections with a machete? --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that material that does meet the above criteria should be deleted. For instance, the section "Violence against Muslims" appears to be highly anecdotal (that is, the persons involved just happen to be Muslim, and the violence is incidental). On the other hand, some sections look satisfactory, such as "Islamic views on violence", "Teachings of the Qur'an" (although it needs more depth & analysis), "War and peace", "Jihad", "Violence against women", "Beheadings" & "Dismemberment". As for "Current holy wars", I think that is a valid topic for the article, but I have not yet read the sources currently cited to assess whether they are appropriate and sufficient - so for that section, it may take some time to validate the material, sentence by sentence. --Noleander (talk) 05:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Attitudes towards Jews" is sloppily worded and has irrelevant material. I would think the massacres should stay if supported by citation. "Attitudes toward non-Muslimes" seems irrelevant to "violence" per se. Dhimmitude needs to be discussed elsewhere IMO. Is Shiite vs Sunni violence in there someplace? Grand Mufti needs coverage but this is not objectively worded.
Since their is no "central control" of the religion, it is understandable, I suppose, that articles seem a bit deranged. This is typical. I think we need to re-organize it. In some areas people and events and attitudes are lumped in together as subtitles. We probably need to stand back and (ugh) outline it. Student7 (talk) 23:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks unfinished, obviously, but about the Islam and Domestic violence section: "The relationship between Islam and domestic violence is disputed". By who? Details? No discussion of how the concerns arose. These ideas are "vaguely justified with reference to the Qur'an". We're dealing with legitimate concerns about a discriminatory practice within factions of a religion and that sentence reads like a lazy dismissal. "Some of the scholars allowing "beating" stress that it is a last resort" - which scholars? What part of Islam? Phrasing reads like a vague justification for the practice, easily interpretable as a tacit acceptance of male-on-female authority. No exploration of its problematic nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.124.210.71 (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Current holy wars

[edit]

I agree that "Current holy wars" is a valid topic. Reviewing the section again, I find that some of the subsections are worth keeping (e.g. Ayatollah, Taliban, Wahhabists). However, the sections are badly written and include text that makes the subsection ramble. In general, the whole section just kind of mentions a bunch of "holy wars" without connecting them together in any overall framework. Are these holy wars related or not? Stepping back from the details and providing a discussion of how scholars view the current state of Islamic violence would be more valuable than this seemingly "random collection of facts". --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Lead-in is "weak" at best. Appears to need restructuring, but right now, I don't see the key to that. Student7 (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arabian Nights?

[edit]

I haven't digested all the changes yet, but under one subsection, "Western stereotypes", we have a bunch of nn editors with odd opinions. One reads "Juan Eduardo Campo writes that, "Europeans (have) viewed Islam in various ways: sometimes as a backward, violent religion; sometimes as an Arabian Nights fantasy;" Westerners regard Islam as an "Arabian Nights fantasy?" What? Who are these people? This is a bit of straw man fallacy, isn't it? We laugh at "Arabian Nights" analogy, and therefore people fearing Islam are also likely laughable, right? Student7 (talk) 00:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about some notable scholars in this subsection? Why are they all unknown? Student7 (talk) 00:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I've always been surrounded by these editors. Whenever I bring a majority pov instead, they revert it by claiming that I'm not following the policies (keeping the already-tagged edition of POV). I'm just paralyzed within violence-related topics. ~ AdvertAdam talk 07:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting and notable idea of "Orientalism" which applies to Middle East as a whole, not just Islam. While not, in my opinion, a good reflection of the modern thinking Westerner, the idea does have some historical basis, though it has recently been debunked to some large extent - it still, however informs the thought on this subject, having been influential for some decades. It suffers to a large extent from assuming what it is trying to prove. Rich Farmbrough, 12:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Large excision

[edit]

Half the article was removed in June. I have my doubts over the correctness of the excisions, citing "Ibn Warraq not a RS" for hi own views.

Having said that the article needs structure, it is currently a bit of a disaster area, partly as a result of that edit, and a previous one which split the article, and partly because it is such a broad topic, covering thirteen centuries and religion, sociology, law, crime and punishment, and military history. For that reason it would probably be better reduced to an overview, linking to disparate articles. Rich Farmbrough, 12:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

New addition

[edit]

I've added new material backed with reliable sources wherever needed. If any one takes issue with one of these inclusions please let me know here, before reverting the changes. But of course, you may rearrange the content freely.

Add this → "{{Talkback|Talk:Islam_and_violence|New addition|ts=~~~~~}}" template on my talk-page, if you're worried I'll not be quick to respond. I repeat, please do it before reverting/erasing my changes. I can prove that these are all legitimate and reliable sources.  Brendon ishere 08:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reference in First paragraph is misleading

"Early Gallup Poll data suggested that 6.5% of Muslims worldwide thought the 9/11 attacks were mostly justified, while 55.4% thought the attacks were not justified at all.[2] " This is actually an incorrect inference from the data, as the data sets were taken from 1-5, 1 being not justified at all and 5 being completely justifiable. The breakdown is as follows [1] 55.4 [2] 11.8 [3] 11.3 [4] 6.5 with a remained of 15% for [5] who believed the attacks were completely justifiable. Per the reference, "We defined "radicals" (as opposed to the "politically radicalized") as those who answered a "4" or a "5" to the 9/11 justification question, and compared this group to those who answered with a "1" or a "2" " -- this would mean, according to the source, 15+6.5=21.5% of those surveyed were "politically radicalized" and felt that the 9/11 attacks were mostly or completely justifiable. The 1-4 breakdown, in the source article, was an attempt to determine which respondents were "radicalized." This article on Islam and violence is wrong from the reference material and misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freakdog (talk • contribs) 01:58, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Er... how did you manage to leap from a parsing of the gallup poll data to a broad generalisation "This article on Islam and violence is wrong from the reference material and misleading."? I deemed the initial premise of your observation as being worth examining carefully until you tacked on the second unsupported statement regarding the entire article as if it were a reliably supported fact. This is an article WP:TALK page, not a WP:SOAPBOX. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're discussing it, maybe the sentence should be modified by saying "on a scale of 1 to 5, early Gallup poll...." Right now, the data seems to be "mapped" from a five-value set into an apparent two-value set. I can see why someone might not think that was precise. It is somewhat WP:SYNTH IMO. Student7 (talk) 17:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't see it as being SYNTH. If you check the article, that is the conclusion of the poll. Adding "on a scale of 1 to 5" doesn't qualify the poll further, it does the antithesis for the reader. All it does is beg the question of "what scale?", clarifying nothing. The article merely breaks down how the poll was run and information extrapolated (i.e., transparency) which is far more than many polls used across Wikipedia articles do. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My leap was over stated. The conclusion of the article from this reference material is wrong. I did not mean to imply that the entire article is wrong -- that would be ridiculous. Still, the proper statement to made should be that, "21.5% of those responded felt that the 9/11 attacks were mostly or completely justifiable." Even the current article concludes 6.5% mostly + 55.4% not + 23.1% in between, adds up to 85.0%, which is, voila, 15% on the left hand side of 'mostly justified.'Freakdog (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Freakdog: To be honest, I have a problem with the presentation of the Gallup Poll questions and results in the lead, full stop. Per the article:
The term "moderate" is more of a placeholder label than a value judgment. It is similar to calling one clustering in the data "group A" and another "group B." We simply used labels that a broad audience can easily understand and remember. Some have also asked how we can call someone a "radical" simply because they thought 9/11 was justified and actually had not *done* anything. The idea here is not that we are judging who or what a "moderate" or "radical" is, but rather assigning labels to statistical groups that we clearly define.
I have reservations regarding the use of the 9/11 attacks as being central to the WP:TITLE. It may be an emotive subject for those in the US, but is WP:UNDUE for the lead. There is a section explicitly dedicated to the poll in the article, but the article is not "Islam and 9/11". It simply doesn't meet with WP:NPOV for the WP:LEAD. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with the poll in or out but not with a misleading presentation of the resultsFreakdog (talk) 03:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm going to go WP:BOLD and remove the results of that poll from the lead. If you feel that there are absolute stats worth salvaging to go into the Belief statistics subheader (the Gallup Poll subsection specifically), please feel free to add them as you think they're best represented. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. I don't believe that poll as properly represented adds additional value beyond what's already in that section. Be bold :) Freakdog (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About my edits

Iryna Harpy sorry but which part of my edits are POV and why? Rupert Loup (talk) 23:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rupert loup: On the whole, I was reverting Syed Muhammad Rizvi WP:POV refactoring of content which immediately preceded you content changes. I couldn't roll back that user's changes without reverting yours.
I've restored all of your citations, plus a large number of your wikilinks: however, you had WP:OVERLINKed the article, plus had contravened WP:WORDS. Note that "asserted", etc. are considered to be loaded language. Please be careful when adding detailed descriptions using wikilinks to articles which, in themselves, are badly sourced and feature no WP:RS to substantiate the verifiability of your added content. Thanks for your attention. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Iryna Harpy: The wikifications were to people and words relevant to the topic of the article and I didn't add any word of WP:WORDS, like "asserted", and all what I added is sourced. Plese be civil and stop accuse me of things that I did not did. Regards. Rupert Loup (talk) 00:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rupert loup: Apologies for the 'words' reference. I was checking through quickly and encountered this edit where 'asserts' features, but it was pre-existing. Facepalm Facepalm Cheers, and keep up the good editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Islamic fanaticism" redirect page

I notice that Islamic fanaticism now redirects to this article. Should this page redirect instead to Religious fanaticism#Islam?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarble (talk • contribs) 04:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, Jarble. The redirect took place in 2011 and hasn't been picked up on in all of this time! Yes, I'd say that's the best choice. Cheers. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Iryna Harpy: I also noticed that History of Islamic fanaticism and Islamic extremist groups both redirect to Islamism. Jarble (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jarble: Okay, there seem to be redirects that shouldn't exist, whether they were put in place in good faith or not. Thanks for the heads up. I'll look into it. It seems that some of these redirects are simply WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, pointing to non-existent articles, or involve articles of dubious pedigree (such as the Religious fanaticism article you've also found). The end result just looks as if Wikipedia is a service for righting great wrongs rather than being an encyclopaedic resource. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion

The articles are WP:CFORK, the two covers two different sides of the same topic. In my opinion they should be merged in one balanced article. Rupert Loup (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In order to qualify your proposal, would I be correct in assuming that you are referring to Islamic extremism and Islamism? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Iryna Harpy I'm referring to Pacifism in Islam, but if there are other content forks can also be discussed here. Religion of peace also seems a fork. Rupert Loup (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rupert loup: My goodness, there do appear to be a number of forks floating around. Yes, having taken a look at the articles, I'd agree that they should be merged into this article in order to deal with all facets of the subject at hand. Religion of Peace is a problematic article in itself. While we cater for neologisms for WP:TITLE, there could be editors who object to having that article merged: but the content, in itself, is essentially a replication of Pacifism in Islam. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Iryna Harpy I'm being WP:BOLD and merged the article with Pacifism in Islam, let's see what happen. I will tag the other articles to merge. Rupert Loup (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, I also added Peace in Islamic philosophy to be merged.
  • Strongly oppose merging into the article which has a dozen of cleanup tags. The article Islam and violence is already one huge mess. "pacifism" and "violence" are different diverse concepts already. Adding there other articles will only increase the mess. First clean the act, and then we can think if, when and how we can merge. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Staszek Lem Pacifism is opposition to war, militarism or violence. This article is about the differents points of view in Islam about violence, and Pacifism is in its scope. According to WP:FORK "POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first, and is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion." So it should be merged and then try to improve the article through consensus. Having POV articles spreading around Wikipedia it doesn't help the project at all. Rupert Loup (talk) 14:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid you are confused in logic. If it is an opposition, then it is a different subject. Therefore it is not fork. We have many articles about views: "Militarism" and "Pacifism" are both about attitude to war. No one in sane mind will say they are WP:FORK. We also have articles about synonyms, as long as the meaning sufficiently diverge. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not, is the same subject. And we only split the articles if they are too extensive. Rupert Loup (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not, is not the same subject. And we split articles if it is convenient for readers. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment The proposal is based on a blurry thinking. Peace, violence ,extremism, pacifism are completely different subjects. Therefore the corresponding "Islam" articles must be cleaned up to reflect exactly what they are about, with cross-referencing (since the topics are indeed interrelated) and minimizing duplication. If you don't understand the difference between the concepts peace, violence, extremism, pacifism, you are not qualified to discuss the subjects at all. Repeating FORK-FORK does not make it FORK. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Pacifism in Islam currently is focused in war. Seems more a POV fork of Islam and war so I will gonna change the merge request to there.Rupert Loup (talk) 00:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In should be focused on pacifism, which is a political and philosophical position of opposition to war. Therefore the article Pacifism in Islam must be focused on opposition to war, not just various views on war in Islam. E.g., discussion of just vs. unjust wars or whether/when Quran approves wars does not belong there. On the other hand, if Islamic pacifists quote Quran to justify their position, then we must mention this fact and only in such cases quote Quran. And so on. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iryna Harpy and Staszek Lem, the discussion about Pacifism in Islam is now taking place here. Rupert Loup (talk) 01:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merging Islamic extremism here—It's a fairly narrowly tailored quasi-disambiguation page with two distinct destinations. Let's not mess it up.--Carwil (talk) 04:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merging: Actually, it is a good catch that it is basically a disambig. To avoid further confusion it should be made a normal disambig page: since the two concepts are different, we should not mix them in the same article. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merging: It is important to allow also the viewpoints of those critical of the more extreme aspects of Islam. David A (talk) 12:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merging': doesn't make any sense that I can see. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The RM is well and truly over, BoogaLouie. It wasn't formally closed, but nothing has been resolved in terms of the multiple articles reiterating the same subject matter. I suspect that this shouldn't be discussed on an individual article basis, but should be approached at a cross-roads article with a view to sorting out the articles that fall under the umbrella of Islam beliefs and practices. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Islam and violence

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Islam and violence's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Leaman":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Thanks, AnomieBOT. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Islam and violence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:11, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Checked Confirmed as correct x 2. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Start by selecting what goes into the article

JG Estiot (talk) 22:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is something seriously wrong with this article. It is titled "Islam and Violence" but yet does not wholly focus on what may or may not constitute violence in Islam.

In my opinion, we should first build a list of items that fall directly under the heading and not deviate into some kind of politically correct transgressions such as positives or negative perception of Islam because it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic. This is not an article about perception of Islam. This can be done separately.

I suggest the following items to be developed within the article (some are already there):

  1. - Violence in the life of the Prophet Muhammad. Was he a violent person (relative to the standards of his time) and how much violence if any did he use to further the cause of Islam?
  2. - Violent verses of the Koran. What are the violent verses of Islam (by today's standards)? Is it possible to group such verses into categories? What messages do they send to the current followers of Islam?
  3. - Sharia. What violence is advocated and practised by Sharia? This is a good opportunity to see what is happening in areas of the world where Sharia has been implemented, such as the province of Aceh in Indonesia.
  4. - The use of Islam to justify terrorism. Why is it that the overwhelming of terrorist acts are perpetrated in the name of Islam? The most important part of this section would be to look at what within the sacred texts of Islam enables violence against others, including on a large scale.
  5. - Violence within the family unit. What, if anything within the sacred texts and teachings of Islam enable violence within the family?
  6. - Islam and human rights. Are some Muslims around the world violently deprived of human rights? The example that comes to mind is what happens when Muslims try to leave their religion.

The above would be a good starting point. If the article is about Islam and Violence, let stick to the topic. Perhaps and for the sale of balance, it would be a good idea to start an article on "Islam and Peace" if it has not already been done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgestiot (talk • contribs)

Need to find WP:RS on these. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig page

This article is basically a list of Islamic topics that deal with "violence": Islam and war, Islam and domestic violence, Islamic criminal jurisprudence and Pacifism in Islam. There is no content in this article that would be unique to Islam and violence. In fact, this article appears to be hodge podge of topics. It's best that it be used as a Disambig page pointing to articles mentioned above.Bless sins (talk) 01:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Magaard

Magaard's essay on this topic was published in an academic volume, and we can reflect that source here. However, she's an economist and not an established expert on this topic, so we need to exercise some caution about how we handle statements that come from her interviews and not academic publications. On the other hand, there's no indication that 10news.one is a RS, so we can't use any statements that come from it at all. I'll replace that citation with the original JP article (which, as far as I can tell, doesn't mention her colleagues). The citation for the book was also wrong. Eperoton (talk) 01:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Islam and violence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jihad

Jihad is made to ensure that the Islamic religion is safe and secure from any intrusion.--Abdullah Alyahya (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC) Some people are confusing terrorists with Islam because some followers of the region may be engaging themselves in terror activities (Ihsan). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdullah Alyahya (talk • contribs) 19:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Negative Perception

In this subsection, I would like to utilize another study that compares how media cover terrorist attacks performed by Muslims and non-Muslims in the U.S. This is very critical in understanding how media attract public support in order to create a "war for Islam" or portray Islam and Muslims as the actors on "War on America"[1].Seda gedik (talk) 03:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Powell, Kimberly (2011). "Framing Islam: An Analysis of U.S. Media Coverage of Terrorism Since 9/11". Communication Studies. 62 (1): 90-112.

Pacifisim in Islam

I noticed to someone totally changed section of pacifism in islam without any explanation. I put back old content, what is sourced and seems balanced. Also I presented one additional source https://www.bbc.com/bitesize/guides/zfnv87h/revision/7 and there is noted to "most Muslims are not pacifists. This is because the teachings in the Qur'an and Hadith allow for wars to be fought if they can be justified". Quaran and Hadith are normative content and esence of Islam and if according to them wars are acceptable there cant be talk about pacifism. And that is shared by majority and it is majority view of muslims. Movements what linked pacifism to Islam are right now small minority. I am sorry but currently that is how facts are. 109.93.186.50 (talk) 08:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Giving to much weight to movements or "schools of thought" what are minority and some can be called fringe or to just some individual examples (note it is talk about whole religion not individuals or individual acts or so) without note about majority view is wrong. Facts are facts. And facts are: 1. In Islam most of Muslims are not pacifist. BBC source. 2. Quaran and Hadith allow wars to be fought. That is normative tradition. Main in Islam, essence. Sourced. 3. Movements who linked/link pacifism with Islam are small minority and some of them are / not considered Muslim by most of Muslims or really minor. E.g ahmadiyya movement and some of sufi orders. 4. Even Ahmadiyya Muslims accept violence as the last option only to be used to protect religion and one's own life in extreme situations of persecution, again not pacifism. 5. Self defence is not pacifism. 6. Nonviolence is not pacifism. 7. Personal oponions can't lead to rewriting fact about history of numerous wars, defensive and offensive, majority views, traditions, texts, sources etc etc. In content what I put back is note about movements, note about history, note about legitimate self defence note about when fighiting stop according to Quran and all sourced good according to fact and balanced. 109.93.186.50 (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Pacifism Post Above

"Fight in the Way of God against those who fight you, but do not go beyond the limits. God does not love those who go beyond the limits." Surah-Al-Baqarah, the second chapter of the Quran. Beauty School Dropout (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC) There is a long and documented history of pacifism within Islam. Beauty School Dropout (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop faking it. There is no history of pacifism in Islam. There is however a history of more than 150 genocides under Muslim rule. Dagana4 (talk) 13:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that is not pacifisim, fighting in self defence is not pacifism and having limits in fighting also is not pacifism. Here it is pretty well explained. https://www.bbc.com/bitesize/guides/zfnv87h/revision/7 "While peace is an important aspect of Islam, and Muslims are encouraged to strive for peace and peaceful solutions to all problems, most Muslims are not pacifists. This is because the teachings in the Qur'an and Hadith allow for wars to be fought if they can be justified." Self defence is not pacifism, justified wars are not pacifism, defensive war is not pacifism. Quran and Hadith are what are normative tradition sources for Islam if war is allowed under any condition well it is not pacifism. Article is about Islam and pacifism not individual acts or just some movements what are minority. It is how it is.109.93.186.50 (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop edit warring — please stop reverting back to your version until the discussion is concluded. Please subscribe to the bold, revert discuss cycle. El_C 19:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
it is not my edit it is how was before someone decided to rewrite whole content and fundamentaly change all and remove all sources. Change happened in 15 of july and done without any explanation. 109.93.186.50 (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. But you have still violated the 3 revert rule. So you should probably stop reverting now, while giving the discussion a chance to take its course. El_C 19:26, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, seems to some editors revert what I put back, thinking to I made content or doesnt enter deeper into problematics. As I said one user removed whole previous content what looked ok, removed all sources and put new one and many of new sources doesnt have connection with pacifism, removed majority views in text and all that change without any explanation. 109.93.186.50 (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted back to the status quo ante version while the discussion concerning this expansion/replacement is being undertaken. El_C 19:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked the sources for the claim "Islam does not have any normative tradition of pacifism", and nearly all of them fail WP:VERIFICATION, with almost none of them actually claiming "Islam does not have any normative tradition of pacifism", so this is a huge misrepresentation of the sources. The only source that actually does somewhat claim this is James Turner Johnson. None of the other sources claim such a thing. The other sources (Efraim Karsh, Bernard Lewis) don't even mention the words "pacifism" or "pacifist" at all anywhere in their books. As for the IP who keeps reverting, s/he is a disruptive POV-pushing WP:Revert ninja, who abuses the WP:BRD and WP:3RR rules by reverting using different IP addresses in order to push a particular WP:POV, as s/he has done repeatedly at Pacifism in Islam (see the talk page there). The editor (using different IPs) was so persistent that I eventually just gave up over there. And now the same editor (with another IP) is at it again here. The editor falsifies sources to support the claim "Islam does not have any normative tradition of pacifism". But upon closer inspection, nearly all of the actual cited sources do not make such a claim. Maestro2016 (talk) 05:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dear user, you just dont have a consensus to make changes, and well about James Turner Johnson; he is noted scholar and profesor deep inside topic. I really dont see what is the problem, all is about facts, not personal wishes or preferences etc. Content is fine and all is well explained. 178.221.118.83 (talk) 02:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is the source by James Turner Johnson which states that. Though I don't know how much WP:WEIGHT or if it is the WP:BESTSOURCES, I think that other sources are needed to back such claim. Rupert Loup (talk) 02:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For me seems to it has big weight also looking bio and how inside topic scholar it is etc. In my opinion it is neutral scholar not about some his pov views etc or to back how it was before discusion how i put it in status quo.

178.221.118.83 (talk) 02:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson meets notability but he is not citing any work there so it's a WP:PRIMARY opinion, we need WP:SECONDARY sources that support such claim. Rupert Loup (talk) 02:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I put back how it was "according to him" . And various movements who link pacifism with theology in islam I think to they are minority views not mainstream so should be not into lead of that section it can make confusion to that movements has bigger weight then they has or so. There is also bbc source about most Muslims are not pacifists. This is because the teachings in the Qur'an and Hadith allow for wars to be fought if they can be justified. That is the main normative sources of islam. So in my opinion if Qur'an and Hadith allow for wars to be fought, any wars, allowing possibility for them to be fought, then that is no pacifism. So it is kind of logical to be made to there is no normative tradition. And to add, peace is not pacifism, pacifism is method and norm for behaviour. If someone said peace it is not equal to someone is pacifist.178.221.118.83 (talk) 02:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your last edit deleted sourced content about peace in Islam. I reverted it since no reason was given. The BBC source also is primary, it doesn't back up such statement with any cite. "That is the main normative sources of islam." According to whom? Conclusion not explicitly stated by the sources are WP:SYNTH. "So in my opinion if" This is WP:NOTAFORUM, your own thoughts and analyses are irrelevant. Also the section should be a summary of Pacifism in Islam in order to avoid WP:CFORK. Rupert Loup (talk) 10:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So all is primary, bbc is primary, Johnson is primary, well then lets imagine things and make to all is pacifism and all is nice, is that cool? Can there be used a lil more logic. Johnson is relevant source, BBC is relevant source and that should be that. And when source is reliable that is it, and life facts does not need to be sourced all the time. There is already discusion and pretty well explained at this talk page etc. If something is explained about Islam it can't be taken without global picture, at this article about Islam and Violence a lot of sources about war and how to wage war and what is rules and when. This reminds me as for example someone take Hitler speech where he mention peace and start claiming to cuz of that he is pacifist or to there is pacifism tradition in national socialism. Or Rudolf Hess flight to Britain as example of pacifsit tradition and persuing for peace and peaceful resolving of conflict in National Socialism, well I think to noone normal would do that.178.221.118.83 (talk) 14:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's good and all but we don't put extraordinary claims by primary sources "along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity." WP:FALSEBALANCE If the statement is an accepted view I'm sure that you will have no problems in find secondary sources that back it up. Rupert Loup (talk) 15:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is wrong way of thinking, read article, read about war rules,Quran and Hadith, opinions of islam jurists, reasons for war, how and when, problem is who to talk about pacifism when there is noone except some personal examples and some minor movements. False balance would be to someone put more waight then really existing, against mainstream views, majority views or historical facts accoridng to someone personal pov views. I can put a lot of sources what is rules for war in Islam and when to wage it. But it is not for Pacifism section. If self defence is considered obligatory what to talk about, only as I said lets imagine and pretend. If Islam pretty well explain rules for war, when and how, there is logicaly not much "room" for pacifism. If someone has personal preferences about pacifism it is for blog not wikipedia. If someone cherrypicking some content to look as pacifism in islam is dominant or some such claim it is also not for wikipedia. If someone want to not see to there is war rules in Islam and to there is long history of warfare, well it is personal pov view. And to wage war in self defence is NOT pacifism,leaving room for any justification for war or warfare response is NOT pacifism. If there is a religion what explain war and warfare and rules when and how it is Islam. 178.221.118.83 (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that 178.221.118.83 is yet another sockpuppet of banned User:MilanVuko1. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MilanVuko1/Archive for the evidence. 178.221.118.83 is engaging in the same pattern of disruptive editing as the other IPs mentioned there, and is also based in the same location (Serbia). Maestro2016 (talk) 12:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you don't have any arguments and you are a little paranoid in doing your activist work. Listen, lets write to all muslims are pacifist and to all normative texts are about pacifism, is that what can make you happy? No problem, you can do that at your personal, blog not at Wikipedia.178.221.118.83 (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MilanVuko1, I've already explained to you over at Talk:Pacifism in Islam why your disruptive edits are problematic, and how they go against Wikipedia's rules/guidelines/policies (WP:TOPIC, WP:LEADSENTENCE, WP:VERIFICATION, WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH, WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:REVERT). I'm not going to explain it you again. Maestro2016 (talk) 17:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think user you are highly paranoid and afraid of any debate and well, I understand your personal pov views are so strong but again you should put your views in some personal space not into wikipedia articles. I understand and I respect if you want to change or reform islam or make it pacifist and to maybe we should all pretend to pacifism is main point of Islam but sorry nop. Cheers 178.221.118.83 (talk) 19:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The "Statistics" section, and definitions.

This is rather short, so - in the "Statistics" section, should it not mention that the definition of "violent crime" et al. varies between countries? Perhaps most pertinently, if one reads the article on domestic violence in islam, or in general, violence against women in islam, it would seem that the statistics and/or consensus there is that there is clearly more domestic violence against women in muslim-majority countries - by a rather wide margin - than in other countries. So, just saying that "hey, there is less murder in muslim-majority countries" and focusing so heavily on that in the lead-in of the section, seems rather misleading, in a section in an article called "Islam and violence", doesn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:9B1:8826:0:98:128:186:119 (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with vandalism on the basis of longstanding status

Need help from someone who can check the recent changes and make a decision or take action, if necessary. Currently, there is a revert war going on for keeping a longstanding version of the article where every heading and sub-headings are placed randomly. I believe, version 1160797188 is better and the one that has a flow based on the introduction paragraph. The current version is all over the place, an obvious one would be placing Quran as a type of violence, while it's a religious text, and as the introduction paragraph mentions a religious background. Need intervention to stop vandalism based on statements that probably doesn't have anything to do with Wikipedia policy.2605:B100:D20:5AEF:3A88:B0D1:7F58:23E6 (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing going on "currently", the article hasn't been edited in two days. I see no reason for administrator intervention.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see no evidence of vandalism, as you say: it looks to me as though both editors concerned are doing what they sincerely believe is best for the article. The disagreement over suitable content for the article is not a matter for administrators, and your first step should be to try to discuss the matter with the other editor. If that doesn't work you may like to consider Wikipedia:Dispute resolution Meanwhile, I have issued warnings about edit-warring to the talk pages of the two editors involved, because edit-warring is a matter for administrators. In your case, because you keep switching to different IP addresses, it is difficult to be certain that you will receive the messages, but I have posted to several IP addresses you have used, and this page, and I am willing to presume that you will now see the warnings: if you read this but haven't seen a warning then check the talk page of the IP address from which you posted the above message, User talk:2605:B100:D20:5AEF:3A88:B0D1:7F58:23E6. JBW (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I am not engaged in any edit warring. Various IP users, one/or group of them do mass change of long-standing content without any consensus or anything similar. The way all this seems, I mean the behavior of IP user or users seems pretty strange a little. Like some serious push, I don't see any consensus, and talk page discussion just someone who thinks to some stuff for him or they is not looking good. For me, it does seem ok. Adios. Srafciger88 (talk) 05:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, the reverts that user Srafciger88 is making is based on how the article should be arranged. User Srafciger88 continuous revert is an evidence of keeping a poorly arranged version of the article. I am not sure if it is best to promote such persistent acts of vandalism.2605:B100:D20:7C71:B3E7:1426:AE78:41D3 (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of known shallow source

We have prose about a a software developer (not a religious expert) comparing the old Testament to the Quran. It ends with this quote - "Anderson states that: "I must also reemphasize that this analysis is superficial and the findings are by no means intended to be conclusive."

Why would we put in arbitrary shallow analysis from nonexperts? 99.33.184.99 (talk) 13:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statistic Section

Provided sources are mostly at least 10 years old, some of them over 20 years. This can not reflect recent data and is thus misleading.

Moreover, I do not see in which way a text analysis comparison of the Quran and the Bible contributes to the topic. Violence of religious people is not attributable to word-frequency in holy books. This paragraph insinuates that the bible is more violent than the Quran - but what is the conclusion? At the same time the word "love" appears more often in the Bible than in Quran - what does this say us? Answer: Nothing. Therefore I propose the deletion of this paragraph. Abba1200 (talk) 19:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Islam_and_violence