Talk:Islamic extremist terrorism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is a controversial topic, which may be disputed. Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes.

Archives of older discussions can be found here:

A note to all editors:
Please remember to sign your comments using "~~~~"! (This request includes anonymous users.) Please keep off-topic discussion unrelated to the upkeep of the article to a minimum. Thanks!

Contents

[edit] Qur'an Quotes

1. "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority: their abode will be the Fire: And evil is the home of the wrong-doers!" (Qur'an 3:151)[1]

2. "How many a township have We destroyed! As a raid by night, or while they slept at noon, Our terror came unto them. No plea had they, when Our terror came unto them, save that they said: Lo! We were wrong-doers." (Qur'an 7:4-5)[2]

3. "Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): 'I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.'" (Qur'an 8:12)[3]

4. "Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly." (Qur'an 8:60)[4]

5. "Lo! those who disbelieve spend their wealth in order that they may debar (men) from the way of Allah. They will spend it, then it will become an anguish for them, then they will be conquered. And those who disbelieve will be gathered unto hell,"(Qur'an 8:36)[5]

6. "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful."(Qur'an 9:5)[6]

7. "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." (Qur'an 9:29)[7]

8. "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!" (Qur'an 9:30)[8]

9. "And the True Promise draweth nigh; then behold them, staring wide (in terror), the eyes of those who disbelieve! (They say): Alas for us! We (lived) in forgetfulness of this. Ah, but we were wrong-doers!" (Qur'an 21:97) [9]

10. "He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may make it conqueror of all religion however much idolaters may be averse."(Qur'an 61:9) [10]

11. "On the Day when (some) faces will be whitened and (some) faces will be blackened; and as for those whose faces have been blackened, it will be said unto them: Disbelieved ye after your (profession of) belief ? Then taste the punishment for that ye disbelieved."(Qur'an 3:106)[11]

12. "Lo! Those who disbelieve Our revelations, We shall expose them to the Fire. As often as their skins are consumed We shall exchange them for fresh skins that they may taste the torment. Lo! Allah is ever Mighty, Wise." (Qur'an 4:56) [12]

13. "And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do." (Qur'an 8:39) [13]

14. "O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you twenty steadfast they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be of you a hundred (steadfast) they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they (the disbelievers) are a folk without intelligence." (Qur'an 8:65)[14]

15. "Lo! those who disbelieve, among the People of the Scripture and the idolaters, will abide in fire of hell. They are the worst of created beings."(Qur'an 98:6)[15]

16. "Say: (It is) the truth from the Lord of you (all). Then whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve. Lo! We have prepared for disbelievers Fire. Its tent encloseth them. If they ask for showers, they will be showered with water like to molten lead which burneth the faces. Calamitous the drink and ill the resting-place!" (Qur'an 18:29)[16]

17. "These twain (the believers and the disbelievers) are two opponents who contend concerning their Lord. But as for those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them; boiling fluid will be poured down on their heads,Whereby that which is in their bellies, and their skins too, will be melted;And for them are hooked rods of iron.Whenever, in their anguish, they would go forth from thence they are driven back therein and (it is said unto them): Taste the doom of burning." (Qur'an 22:19-22)[17]

84.146.210.194 19:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] npov tag

Could you please explain why you think this article does not adhere to NPOV? Thanks, --Urthogie 20:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Topic Renamed

This topic has renamed as the Jewish terrorism page has been consistingly renamed by Urthogie to "Zionist political violence" and my contributions have been reverted. I think we should permit to have religiosly motivated violence and terrorism pages with their proper names. You cannot make exception for either Islam or Christianty or Judaism or Hinduism. Siddiqui 21:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I actually renamed it Jewish extremist terrorism, which is in line with Islamic extremist terrorism. While I congragulate you for being bold, you should actually expect to be reverted for controversial edits on controversial issues if you choose not to use the talk page first. Thanks, --Urthogie 21:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
The Jewish extremist terrorism page is now redirected to List of organisations involved in religious terrorism page. The Jewish terrorism , Zionist terrorism and Israeli terrorism pages have been reverted or/and redirected to other pages. Why don't we have also have the same rule for Islamic or Christian or Hindu terrorism pages ? I think Islamic extremist terrorism page should also be redirected to List of organisations involved in religious terrorism. Why did you revert and redirect my contribution to Jewish terrorism and Zionist terrorism several times ?
Siddiqui 22:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
This talk page is just for discussion of this page. What do you want this page to be called, and why? Tom Harrison Talk 22:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
(Deep sigh). This page must be treated in-itself. There are no rules for terrorism pages in general, nor should there be. Argue each topic 'alone, if you need to argue. That "Islamic extremist terrorism" exists is not a de facto reason to create "Jewish extremist terrorism". A given topic either does or does not have a profile worthy of encylcopediac treatment. There's no other way Wiki can treat this properly. Marskell 23:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. I am just objecting to systemic rediretion and reversion of Jewish terrorism, Zionist terrorism and Israeli terrorism pages. These pages have redirected to List of organisations involved in religious terrorism and State terrorism pages. When I decoupled these redirects and included relevent information Tom Harrison and Urthogie started and reverting and redirecting these pages. This is censorship and discrimination. Rules must apply equally to all types of religious terrorism.
Siddiqui 00:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been joining the debates here, since I'm still reading history and learning. But I would suggest that an article name like Islamism and terrorism would be more neutral, as it suggests that there is some association between the topics, or some debate, without implying that all Islamists are terrorists. Zora 23:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The people we are discussing here do not identify as "Islamist"--they identify as Muslim (which can be used as an adjective but is generally replaced in such instances with "Islamic"). With certain caveats they are identified as Mulsim by God (ie., Google) as well as by Anglo govt's. There are two archives devoted to this debate if you have some free time. Marskell 23:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, yes, of course ... just as many Christian denominations believe that they are the only true Christians and other sects are ersatz. Still, Islamist is increasingly the accepted term (in journalism and academia) for the Wahhabi/Salafi/Deobandi/Qutbi/Khomeinist strain of thought. Even if those folks don't accept it. Zora 00:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Zora, Islamic terrorism or Islamic extremism are the most popular terms in the academy, the mainstream press, and on the internet as a whole.--Urthogie 14:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
My question is why are you and your friends systematically redirecting and reverting my contribution to Jewish terrorism, Zionist terrorism and Israeli terrorism ? This page should also be redirected to List of organisations involved in religious terrorism. I will again try to recouple those pages and redirect this page to List of organisations involved in religious terrorism. If anybody has objections then let them express it. We should have one policy towards all religious based terrorism.
Siddiqui 14:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
They aren't my "friends", theyre people I respect on the internet enough to discuss with before making decisions. As far as redirecting, I oppose, because this article is already bigger than the article you're suggesting it be redirected too. The whole point of a redirect is to either a)redirect an alternate phrasing of the article or b)redirect to wider ranging article because the redirect name is uncapable of being a non-stub. As you can see, neither a) nor b) is true, so this, I believe, should not be a redirect. By the way, thanks for using the talk page to reach consensus, instead of acting first. Thanks, --Urthogie 15:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I can understand what Siddiqui is talking about and I like Zora's idea. Urthogie one of the things you said you would do while you moved this page to Islamic extremist terrorism is that another article should exist on Jewish extremist terrorism and the Christian one as a reason for us to support the rename of this one. I don't see any good reason why the other article should be redirected but this isn't. But I think if we are going to keep this as an article then the other one should exist too. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 16:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
The thing is, 99% of jewish terrorism is zionist terrorism (which does have an article). An article on that remaining one percent could never be more than a stub, so we set it to redirect.--Urthogie 15:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
But isn't calling all Jewish extremism Zionism incorrect. But similarly our article title is a bit off too. But does Jewish terrorism and Jewish extremist terrorism redirect to Zionist terrorism? I find that they redirect to "List of organisations involved in religious terrorism". --a.n.o.n.y.m t 16:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
In that case, I'll set them all to redirect to Zionist political violence.--Urthogie 16:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Or more fairly to Zionist terrorism like you said it redirects before.--a.n.o.n.y.m t 16:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I've suggested Zionist violence on the talk page. Please join discussion.--Urthogie 16:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this is for Zora. Most Christian denominations do not view themselves as the one true faith...most differences between Protastant sects are purely on minor issues and of course many of the "sects" originated from different parts of the world at around the same time. Most sects get along quite fine with others. This is not true of the differences in Islam where the differences are based on who was the true successor to Muhammad. but that is really beside the point, not all Muslims are terrorists but every terrorist that we face now is a Muslim.Culmo80 20:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)culmo80

[edit] Redirection to List of organisations involved in religious terrorism

This topic will be redirected to List of organisations involved in religious terrorism. If anybody has any objections and concerns please post them.

Siddiqui 14:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Where do you want to put the content that you will be replacing with the redirect? Tom Harrison Talk 14:55, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Same where you have contents about other religious terrorism.
Siddiqui 15:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. This article has more content than the article it is suggested it be redirected too, and it would thus be advised by wikipedia guidelines not to redirect it. Especially considering only one person suggests this, I think it would be completely irrational and unreasonable to go forward with this.--Urthogie 15:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Siddiqui, what page specifically? Tom Harrison Talk 15:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
He's suggesting this be redirected to the list of terrorism, thereby losing all the current content.--Urthogie 15:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Support The current article implies that there is a monolithic subject of Islamic/Islamist/Muslim (take your pick) terrorism. It puts a very diverse collection of groups, movements and ideologies into one bucket and makes some hand-waving statements to try and tie it all together. Redirecting to discussions of individual groups makes sense to me. --Lee Hunter 15:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Lee, Brittanica and Encarta don't run away from this subject. Why should we? Why should we, purely out of compromise, give up on the premise that we can cover every subject as any encyclopedia could-- youre essentially saying we should eliminate coverage of this diverse topic and replace it with a list.--Urthogie 15:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
So who's said anything about running away? What I'm suggesting is that this is an artificial subject that's pulling out something common (i.e. Islam) from a bunch of otherwise unrelated articles and treating it as if it were a subject in its own right. Can you provide a link to the Britannica or Encarta coverage of this subject? I did a quick search and couldn't find where they addressed this in the same way. In any case, I'm not sure that other encyclopedias provide any sort of standard now that WP is much larger than other reference works. --Lee Hunter 16:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what Siddiqui is proposing and Lee is supporting. What is to be done with the content that's presently on this page? Tom Harrison Talk 15:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I would support a renaming of List of organizations involved in religious terrorism to Religious terrorism, with see also links to Zionist terrorism, Christian terrorism, and Islamic extremist terrorism. The fact that theres no article on religious terrorism is very lame. I'll go there an propose a rename.--Urthogie 15:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't oppose that. I'm less concerned with names than with losing content. Based on recent experience, we'll rename everything again in a month anyway. Tom Harrison Talk 16:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the npov tag

The only issue you have raised (albeit unconvincingly) is a page rename. Please explain why the article is not NPOV?--Urthogie 15:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

This page has a redundant title. Just as there is a page for Christian terrorism, there should be a page on Islamic terrorism. Terrorism is an extreme action. The term "extremist" is a loaded perjorative label. The conetent on this page should remain. It should make it clear in the opening that Islam itself is not terrorist any more than any other religion. There has been a discussion at Islamofascism (term) about creating a page titled Islamic authoritarianism, but that title currently redirects to Neofascism and religion, which may or may not be a temporary solution. Terrorism and authoritarianism are related but not identical. Just my opinion.--Cberlet 13:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Repeated talk consensus is that the existence of Christian Terrorism or anything like it does not dictate the name appearing here. Islamic terrorism does not have support--I was fine with it but numerous other editors were not and it was voted down. Marskell 13:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
And I raise it again, because the name is redundant, provocative (as is Islamofascism), and not the title construction that an NPOV encyclopedia should have. I read the back discussion, and am making a suggestion. I know it is frustrating to have endless discussions, but this question is clearly not settled, and it seems more discussion is needed.--Cberlet 14:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
It was chosen because it was deemed less provocative. Discuss away--there is at present basically zero chance this will move to Islamic terrorism. Marskell 14:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The only sensible suggestion that's been made lately is Zora's above, but it's rejected - just as this page was earlier moved - because of what I consider to be a deeply misguided idea that the page should have a title that privileges google counts or the usage of the US government over accuracy. Islamic terrorism is both provocative and inaccurate. The current title is merely inaccurate. So as we can't have an accurate title, let's settle for the least inadequate alternative. Palmiro | Talk 14:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Jeez, raw nerve endings. I understand the need for both sensitivity and accuracy. I spent many months working out disputes at Neofascism and relgion which has a section on Islam. A more neutral and accurate and sensitive title would take more words. Something like (after reviewing a bunch of other pages): Political violence by Islamic militants.--Cberlet 14:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, we're always going to be privileging something. "Islamist" privileges the academy. This privileges gov's, yes. It's clunky but it works. Most important I think is avoiding this "1, 2, 3 we have to be fair" logic with Christian, Muslim and Jewish pages. Marskell 14:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, yes, raw nerve endings I must admit. It comes with living in this part of the world and seeing all the nonsense that the media in other parts of the world come up with about it, and then seeing it all again repeated on Wikipedia. I actually quite like your proposed alternative.
I don't at all agree with Marskell that "Islamist' privileges the academy. All the groups tralked about in this article are widely referred to as Islamist groups. I do however tend to agree with him about the idea that whatever formula is used in naming this article must be absolutely identical with that used for political violence inspired by Christian or Jewish religious ideologies. Palmiro | Talk 14:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I think we disagree on both counts! I was saying whatever is used here should not be the de facto template for Christian and Jewish pages. Each should be evaluated individually. Marskell 14:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
No I meant I agree with your disagreement with the idea blah blah blah; i.e. I do agree with you that each should be evaluated separately! 14:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

By far the most sensible suggestion (second only to redirecting to the list of terrorist groups) was Islam and terrorism. This sidesteps all those torturous questions about Islamic, Islamist and extremist. --Lee Hunter 14:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

But that, too, sound like it is about a different thing: how Islam relates to and views terrorism, and not just terrorism carried out by Islamic organizations. And in all this debate no-one has once disputed the point I repeatedly made that every single instance of terrorism and every single organization under consideration on this page was not simply an Islamic organization/attack but an Islamist one. Palmiro | Talk 14:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
As I recall, I wasn't opposed to Islam and terrorism but it does sound too much like the title of an essay rather than an encyclopedia page.
I think your point Palmiro was addressed repeatedly. Namely, that if you believe Islamist is an oxymoron and non-distinct from Islamic we should choose the more common latter item as a matter of course. Now (God help me) I'm going to have address the logic of this again but here goes: "Islamist" meaning "political Islam" tacitly contrasts with a putative "non-political Islam." Which is what, exactly? When and how has Islam qua Islam not been political? I can think of very specific contexts where deploying it makes sense ("Islamists" versus "securalists" in Turkey, say) but even here it doesn't seem like a word that needs inventing.
I absolutely have never understood the argument that taking the core adjective, Islamic, is somehow offensive. Timothy McVeigh was an American not an Americanist; the Inquisition was Christian not Christianist. You might say I should take this up with social scientists rather than with other Wikipedia editors, and indeed if Islamist achieves the same level of conventional usage as Islamic in contexts of this sort, then OK. But at present that does not appear to be the case as noted repeatedly in the archives. Marskell 15:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Of course Islamist means something distinct from Islamic. Islamism is an ideological and political tendency that claims that Islam mandates a particular form of goverment. Islamic is an adjective that means "having to do with Islam". Quite likely most Muslims are not Islamists. If you look at free elections in Muslim countries the majority of Muslims in Palestine do not vote for Islamist parties, they vote for Fatah or Hadash or Balad. In Syria's brief democratic period Islamists won feck-all of the vote (agreed that that was a long time ago) and secular parties won nearly everything. In Turkey many Muslims vote for non-Islamist parties. Are none of them proper Muslims? There is a world of difference between an "Islamic" organization and an "Islamist" one. One has a political project derived from an idea of Islam. The other does not necessarily have any such view. I think it is quite clear that Hamas, Hizbullah, Jaysh Muhammad, etc etc are all Islamists. Palmiro | Talk 17:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
McVeigh actions are not generally presented as springing from his American identity and he's not usually described as a "Christian terrorist". I've only ever heard the Inquisition referred to as the "Spanish Inquisition" not the "Christian Inquisition". --Lee Hunter 15:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Marskell that "Islamist" is not the main conventional usage, and it has been objected to by some Islamic groups for the reason above--that we don't refer to Christianist or Judaist in the same usage. And I point out that in regular encyclopedias there is an alignment of title forms across the entries becasue otherwise it confuses the heck out of the reader. Maybe not the same here with an online text.--Cberlet 15:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
"McVeigh actions are not generally presented as springing from his American identity." Disagree 1000 percent. Britannica: "American terrorist" [18]. Our own page: "American domestic terrorist." The survivalist and militia movements maybe cuckoo, but they are eminently American. Hey, this is an argument we need to have! Marskell 15:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Idea

I thought of a good compromise that doesn't favor the academy but should satisfy Palmiro: Islamic political terrorism.--Urthogie 15:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

But the problem nags here, too. Here is an unfortunate little story: Qu'ran apparently desecrated, two churches get burned in Pakistan [19]. Church burnings are relatively common in Pakistan and while I wouldn't call it terrorism as such (disorganized mobs are not necessarily terrorists) it certainly comes close. We need a label that can accomodate religious-sectarian stuff. Marskell 15:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
This is sectarian mob violence, which I think is quite different from terrorism. Was the pillaging of Christian-owned businesses in Achrafiyyeh terrorism? Was the Damascus massacre of 1860 terrorism? Were any of the various anti-Christian mob attacks in Egypt in recent decades terrorism? Palmiro | Talk 18:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Good point. Damn.. Palmiro, Islamism doesn't seem to address stuff like that, so why have Islamist in the article title?--Urthogie 15:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
But here we are talking about violence by Islamists, not some sort of generic Islamic violence. See my reply to Marskell aboce. Palmiro | Talk 17:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
So why have "Islam" in the title or even "terrorism"? Why not just have an article entitled "Sectarian Violence" with references to sub-articles such as "Sectarian Violence in Pakistan"?--Lee Hunter 16:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Why 'in Pakistan?' Why 'sectarian?' Tom Harrison Talk 16:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting my example belongs as it stands or that this should lose a focus on terrorism. I was only pointing out that using the term "political" may be something of a straight jacket in certain instances. If, out of our disorganized mob, a dozen men get together, come up with a name to the effect of "Burn every Church in Pakistan," stockpile some weapons, and start agitating, you'd have a terrorist group--but not an especially political one. --Marskell 16:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
We need to mention Islam on this page title because all religions have factions that promote political violence, but we have an obligation as encyclopedists to not be routinely offensive to religions. So there needs to be a balance between what is accurate and NPOV, and what is sensitive and not offensive. It is a compromise. It would not be accurate to exclude mention of Islam in some way in the title. The issue is where is the proper balance between accuracy and offense. Se we need pages on Political violence by Islamic militants (both historic and contemporary); Political violence by Jewish militants (both historic and contemporary); Political violence by Christian militants (both historic and contemporary); Political violence by Hindu militants (both historic and contemporary); and because of regional geographic conflicts that are longstanding and violent, we also need a page on Political violence by Zionist and Israeli militants (both historic and contemporary); and Political violence by Palestinian militants (both historic and contemporary) or at least Political violence involving Israelis and Palestinians. --Cberlet 16:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Of course, you could choose to do what we did with the issue of neofascism, Neofascism and religion and ceate a page called Religion and political violence that covered multiple religions.--Cberlet 16:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Political violence by Islamic militants doesn't cover non-political violence, as Marskell pointed out. I really completely disagree with the word Islamism ever being the name of this article. It's like saying, Marxist terrorists aren't real marxists!--Urthogie 17:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Palmiro, Lee, I still want your answer to this: where would you guys have put non-Islamist terrorism that was justified by Islam, had your name been chosen for the page?--Urthogie 17:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

My entire point was that there was no such terrorism mentioned on the page at the time. Where is it now? Palmiro | Talk 17:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll add it this weekend possibly. I'm sure that wasnt your entire point, right?--Urthogie 17:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I seem to recall saying that this article was quite obviously about "terrorism" by Islamist organizations. If it had really been about "islamic terrorism", whatever that might be, and nobody has as far as I can see defined what it might be adequately (in my personal and obstinate view), I wouldn;t have been objecting in the first place. Palmiro | Talk 18:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
What would you call terrorism(such as burning of churches) that does not aim to create Sharia law, but results from revenge or hatred, and justified by Islam?--Urthogie 18:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean by "justified by Islam". Anyway, mob violence is not the same as terrorism. Also, as far as I know, most of the sectarian attacks against Shia, Christian and Sunni targets in Iraq lately have been ascribed to Islamist organizations. I believe that the same is true in Aceh, for example. Palmiro | Talk 18:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Urthogie, your question is circular and deceptive. "Non-Islamist terrorism that was justified by Islam" presupposes that everything has to be defined in relation to Islam. Behind this Islamist/Islamic terrorism are many and diverse political struggles. In each case there are happen to be incidents of terrorism that result from one or more of the actors. It's true that these terrorists do try to justify their actions in terms of their religion (as people have done throughout history) but this attempt by WP editors to label the whole thing as "Islamic" smacks of western bias. In other words, rather than treat Palestine, Chechnya, Iraq etc. as political struggles that have spawned terrorism, we take the lazy way out by squeezing everything into the same box and slapping an "Islamic terrorism" label on the side as if that explains everything. That's why I liked the "Islam and Terrorism" article because I think that examing attitudes towards terrorism among Muslims is a legitimate topic. Terrorism is a legitimate topic. Sectarian violence is a topic. "Islamic sectarian violence" would be a faux topic dreamed up to serve the predilictions of the editors. --Lee Hunter 18:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, example: terrorism against a newspaper for printing something that portrayed muslims in a bad way, by someone who doesn't want sharia law. Would that be Islamist terrorism, or Islamic terrorism?--Urthogie 19:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with simply calling it "terrorism" or perhaps "religious terrorism". I think this fixation on trying to associate Islam with terrorism, is just a reflection of the current obsessions and paranoia of western society. --Lee Hunter 19:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Your opinion on fixations of society has nothing to do with the fact that its encyclopedic. When there's a wealth of information on a notable topic, you're supposed to split the article and summarize it in the main one(religious terrorism). By the way, it must be asked, do you think there is there a fixation on state terrorism? on christian terrorism?--Urthogie 19:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Sure, split a larger article but that begs the question of where you make the split. Why not split it geographically like we do for virtually every other topic? Terrorism in the the Middle East (or Terrorism in Iraq etc.) and so on? The decision to split things by religion reflects the systemic bias (I would call it lazy thinking) of the editors. --Lee Hunter 20:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Good point. How about we make it Religious terrorism in the Arab-Israeli conflict?--Urthogie 20:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

We categorize Art, Literature, History, Science etc. by religion. Why not terrorism? It's not lazy thinking--it's an obvious means of qualifying this. Poor Muslim kills his neighbour for bread. Not a religious murder. Poor Muslim kills village priest because of perceived Qu'ran desecration. Is a religious murder. If such killings are carried out be an organized group, we call it Islamic extremist terrorism. Where the problem at? As for the never-ending red herring of "Western bias", both "Islamism" and "Islamic fundamentalism" are Western coinages, so I don't know how the present title is somehow more biased. Marskell 10:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the current title is a bit unwieldy, but it is NPOV. Lee, Palmiro, I'm wondering what you think of Mars' reply to your concern over bias.--Urthogie 11:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
The problem, once again, is that this article is primarily talking about terrorism that has arisen from political and terroritorial struggles. Religion is simply the flag that the terrorists have draped themselves in. Sure, they will happily tell you that they do what they do because "it is the will of Allah" and if they die they'll go to heaven etc etc. But just because they are talking about how God is on their side, does not, in itself, make it a religious conflict. It doesn't change the fact that they are actually engaged in a political and territorial struggle. Calling it "Islamic" just glosses over the whole messy reality of what is happening on the ground and gives it a convenient handle. --Lee Hunter 14:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the territorial conflict named above deserves to be highlighted to avoid analytical bias, but there is a lot of recent scholarship on religion and violence and religion and terrorism. I do not think this is an either/or situation. Perhaps a page on Religion and violence could have satellite pages on Violence and (pick a religion), and if it grew then Terrorism and (pick a religion). But I think there are problems with starting a title with the name of a religion and then using words like terrorism or violence. It is bound to be a magnet for confrontation. And the term "extremist" is rapidly being junked by social scientists as a meaningless perjorative label. This is especially true among sociologists who study movements.--Cberlet 14:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Extermist is not completely junked yet, and terrorism(despite its contentious use) is a word with a meaning(albeit many meanings, apparently) To Lee: if religion is part of the motivation and justification, doesn't it deserve an article, just as territoriality and political analysis do as well? For example, Osama Bin Laden. Islam is his main justification. His perverse understanding of Islam leads him to conduct terror.--Urthogie 15:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Bin Laden is a great example of someone who has framed his movement in religious terms, but if you look at his goals, they are again political and territorial. Changes of government in Saudi Arabia, Egypt etc. the Palestinians returned to their homeland, Jerusalem regained, Kashmir, the Americans out of the Gulf and Iraq. Yeah, there's a whole lot of religion intertwined with this, but the rhetoric about killing Jews and Christians would have no traction if it wasn't very much grounded in these post-colonial regional conflicts. --Lee Hunter 17:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Then why is it that terrorists are trained at schools of religious teaching?--Urthogie 18:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand the point of your question. What difference does it make? Religion is obviously an enabler of the conflicts and the conflict is framed in religious terms so people are recruited and trained at mosques, madrassas and wherever but to make something of that is to confuse how a conflict is fought with what it's about. World War II was less a war against totalitarianism than it was against Axis of Evil 1.0. It was a geopolitical conflict. Fascism and Nazism were just the ideologies employed by one side. Primarily it was a struggle between nations for territory, resources and influence. --Lee Hunter 19:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Isn't it valuable to examine the way ideology can enable violence?--Urthogie 19:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. Although I'm afraid it's the kind of article that Wikipedia is genetically incapable of doing well. --Lee Hunter 03:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Well what's wrong with the article current attempts to do that?--Urthogie 11:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Does it really attempt to examine the way ideology can enable violence or does it just provide a meandering dog's breakfast of random bits of information (each factoid given equal importance)? As much as I love WP, this article is a poster child for the encyclopedia's natural weaknesses. A good article on religion and violence could only be written by one person, someone who has a deep knowledge of the subject, and who is able to marshall the information in a way that gives some perspective, perhaps even a point of view. I'm not optimistic that an ever-changing gaggle of lightly-informed and disputative dabblers (like myself for example) could do any justice to the subject. --Lee Hunter 13:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll put the expert template it on it as a temporary request for an expert.--Urthogie 14:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I like the suggestion of the title "political violence by Islamic militants" as the alternative name for this page and others dealing with religeous terrorism Fyntan 11:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link to Wahhabism

A very important aspect of the Islamic terrorism is missing. It is well established that Al-Quaeda has Wahhabi roots and it is the Wahhabi Islam which preaches violent means for the establishment of its ideas. Almost all other sects denounce terrorism. Even if the title of the article couldn't be changed to Wahhabi extremist terrorism, it would be more informative if we add a section about wahhabi idealogy and its terrorist consequences.

The ideology section in general needs a thorough going-over. I don't think we need anything as reductive of as "Wahhabi Islam preaches violent means for the establishment of its ideas" but some link and description could work. Marskell 09:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, its a bad idea to limit the possible content with such a name, but it'd be great to add some stuff about Wahhabism(spelling?) to the ideology section.--Urthogie 10:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • "Almost all other sects denounce terrorism." - You've got to be joking, right?

[edit] funny thing for all the editors of this page

"terrorism...how would I define terrorism....violence by a group without an air force" quote from Gary Brecher, the war nerd. --Urthogie 15:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

They can always aquire an air force Mohammed al-Khawal 07:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
That's sort of missing the quote's point (assuming there is one). Terrorism vs. military is really an issue of sovereignty. The current model of sovereignty is based upon territorial "integrity", i.e. the monopolization of violence over an area that is sufficient to be recognized (irrespective of diplomacy). In fact, the current scheme created incentive for terrorism as we know it, because the equation of land = power was stretched way, way too far in the 19th and 20th centuries. Various attempts to institutionalize it, such as the 1890's colony negotiations between European powers, the League of Nations Mandate System, the U.N. Trusteeship, etc. have failed. Basically, the state model has limits, whether they be economic, political, or social. We are currently at the social level (e.g. globalization), ushered in by WWII, itself a product of social-based state-expansion (look at Nazi ideology; people invested their lives in that system).
Terrorism, in this way, is simply competition for the monopoly of violence. It generally springs up after a failure of state-expansion, almost always bringing with it a new concept of state-expansion (e.g. political Islam). It tends to mimick other state tactics, like propoganda and claims of legitimacy, for the same reason. It is a challenge to sovereignty or a contesting claim to it, though the latter is often considered only a legal note and therefore usually requires a legal system of some sort. The ironic thing is that states are the only actors who can currently legitimize a definition of terrorism, but they are the last agents willing to acknowledge this because it gives terrorism a level of legitimacy in the umbrella of international law, inching it closer to that vague, sacred concept of self-determination (the reason the U.N. has so many problems can be directly related to the current sovereignty model). --Vector4F 14:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The quotes point was to make the editors here laugh.--Urthogie 15:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

No, terrorism it the expressed intent to cause fear and terror for the hope of making political, social or religious change in a society. The KKK was a terrorist group (I say was because it has no power any more). The FARC and ETA are terrorist groups. When 19 men hijacked airliners and flew them into buildings, that is terrorism. When a group kidnaps random people and beheads them, that is terrorism. To try and skirt around this simply because you don't like policy is silly...people who rob a bank are bank robbers, not freedom fighters.Culmo80 20:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)culmo80

[edit] Merge to islamic terrorism

Islamic terrorism redirected here. "Islamic extremist terrorism" is a pleonasm. Tazmaniacs 02:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Good luck with succeeding though.--Urthogie 08:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. This needs to be discussed again. Please do not revert the message flag.--Cberlet 13:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Why? Can we not just read the archives? --Lee Hunter 14:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Reverted; the merge was to an article which does not exist (ie. a redirect) and therefore confusing to our readers. If you are suggesting renaming this article to Islamic terrorism, please see lengthy discussion leading to previous renaming in the talk archives. — JEREMY 14:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
This is not a merge request, it's a move request. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 02:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

He's allowed to suggest a page move, regardless of the archives.--Urthogie 14:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Cmon you can't ever find a muslim apologist willing to call a spade a spade. 128.84.178.81 02:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I visited this "Islamic extremist terrorism" page by following the link from the "Christian terrorism" page. But upon seeing the page's title, i immediately found it disturbing how much of a double standard we have here before us. The title "Islamic extremist terrorism" does nothing to indicate that the terrorism stems from Islamic religious sources the way "Christian terrorism" does. I would suggest that the two pages objectively mirror each other as much as possible so as not to imply a tilt in either the left or right political directions. This would also increase the likelyhood that political forums will quote and/or link these two pages together because the information will as more honest and nonpartial. So in my opinion, the page should be titled "Islamic terrorism", and page's content and structure should be somewhat similar to the "Christian terrorism" page.

Feel free to help us improve this page, but please note that the content of other articles matching this is not the way we approach things-- the goal is to individually reach neutrality on each article, one at a time.--Urthogie 15:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I cant help thinking that the way to neutrality on this topic will be to treat all the religions the same; in terms of basic format, whether the page about the religion contains a link to it's terrorists (Christianity doesn't, Islam does) or not poses a big question about neutrality in itself. I understand that a precedent of writing one page in consideration of another could be problematic for the majority of WP pages, but it is hard for me to see how else this issue can appear to be fairly dealt with Fyntan 11:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] weasel words

To whoever put up the weasel words template, could you explain your rationale? Thanks, --Urthogie 11:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, no hit and run tags please. Obviously this is far from perfect but it's no more weasely than any run-of-the-mill of the page. Marskell 11:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I think its quite reasonable. The wikipedia community seems quite uncomfortable with the correlation between faithful muslims and terrorism. A simple baysian analysis says that given a suicide bombing, the probability that a muslim did it is very close to 1. Mohammed al-Khawal 15:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sentance I edited

"Most often people simply refer to such activity as "terrorism" without qualifying it, and there is much debate about whether commentary on the subject unfairly caricatures Muslims, and Arab Muslims in particular."

That sentance just doesn't make sense to me. The first clause seems to deal with semantics-- what its called. The second clause seems to discuss the issue of bias in the coverage of Islamic terrorism. The second clause comes like a nonsequitor, despite being part of the same sentance and being preceeded with "and."--Urthogie 15:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The intent was to point out that if you don't qualify it you wind up reductively targetting one group with the label (i.e., you have Basque and Irish terrorism, but terrorism as such = Arab). Marskell 15:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to see a single source complaining about "terrorism" automatically referring to muslim/arab terrorism. It seems like a not so obvious statement. I'll {{fact}} it.--Urthogie 16:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
My goodness Urth. The sentence strikes me as one of the most obvious on this page. You may have read about a certain cartoon issue recently. See also: [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] Marskell 16:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
All that proves is that the commentary may be biased-- it doesn't prove anything about how that bias relates to the issue of semantics.--Urthogie 16:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
If you'd like to split the sentence in two, do so. But "there is debate about whether this caricatures Arabs and Muslims" really doesn't need a source. It's a plain fact that there's debate around this issue. Marskell 16:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Reviewing it again, I see that its a complete non-sequitor of a sentance. The paragraph is about what the terrorism is called, not opinions on its coverage. The sentance should stay, but belongs in a paragraph that actually deals with that subject.--Urthogie 18:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
As you like. "A complete non-sequitor" seems a little harsh. "Islamic terrorism is wrong because I like ducks" is a complete non-sequitor. This sentence may be out of place in a paragraph dealing with semantics, but it isn't totally out to lunch. Marskell 21:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Guess you're right. I'm becoming extremely impatient and deletionist. Need to chill with this stuff.--Urthogie 21:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I would say this: relative to the page in general, the intro is fairly tight. Hits the points that are obvious and isn't POV (says me, anyhow). Concern over this sentence is something of an at the margins debate. Sure, the sentence might flow better if we arranged things a little differently, but it does follow in the general sense. I think by and large we do well in saying both this topic is obvious and serious, without saying "let's impune the wider Muslim world" in the intro. The larger issues: Can we make a good ideology section for this? Can we describe the history properly? I would like to see this happen without getting bogged down in edit wars over the intro. Marskell 21:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

As far as the sentance being out of place, you're right its not an NPOV issue, but an organization issue. Sorry I haven't been very involved in this article. I'm very ADHD about my edits, so I hyperfocus on getting one article featured, while just making minor edits to the others(this is high on my list, though!) Peace, --Urthogie 22:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


If its terrorism done by faithful muslims, for claimed Islamic reasons, then it is Islamic terrorism. The only reason that Islamic terrorism is associated with arabs is that most arabs are muslim. Mohammed al-Khawal 15:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article should be deleted

It shows that religion is a proxy for terrorism.Robin Hood 1212 13:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Is it wrong?

[edit] NPOV

Muslims did not do the 9/11 attacks, and claiming they did is to present the American view as factual. --Striver 09:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Um, in the sense that not all 1.2 billion participated, Muslims did not "do" 9/11. Insofar as the nineteen hijackers were in fact Muslims, then Muslisms did. Marskell 09:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh please, do you want to present conspiracy theories. Muslims did commit terrorism on 9/11, they hijacked four planes and killed thousands of people. How could you not believe Muslims killed themselves when you see them blowing themselves up everyday? Osama Bin Laden said he planned the attacks, there is video of them at the airport, there is audio tape of them hijacking United 93. What more do you need? I don't know where you live or what news you get but you are sadly misinformed and it's offensive. (Anonymous User) May 23, 2006

Dear Anonymous User I find your contribution both comical and unbecoming. Just because there are some suicide bombings in a land a couple of 1000s miles of US , how could we reach to conclusion that muslims have done it. In that case we can also hold Japanese resposible for the 9/11 since they were the ones who started this tradition of suicide attacks on enemies (and perhaps Japanese casualities as a result of Hara Kari out number the suicide attacks occured in Israel to this date). Using video/audio evidence to proclaim some one as guilty for a mass murder ......when such evidences arent given any weitage even in the most trivial courts of law any where in the world even for the smallest crimes....then how can we use it to convict some one for such horrific crimes...... perhaps you have gone to a different law school Hussain 14:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

HussainAbbas your answer is why the clash of civilisations will end in genocide(and thats not a good thing!).Hypnosadist 15:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, you gotta know that the conspiracy theorists would show up eventually. I mean if you believe that 9/11 was an inside job or that Israel did it then you have to believe that the dozens of major terrorist attacks prior to 9/11 were also inside jobs or Israeli operations. Please use Occums Razor when thinking about such things...Culmo80 20:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)culmo80

[edit] If "Islamic Terrorism" can be tolerated then why not White Christian Terrorism. Is wikipedia only for the white folks?

If "Islamic Terrorism" can be tolerated then why not White Christian Terrorism. Is wikipedia only for the white folks? -- AmandaParker

Who cares? MOD 13:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, we have a policy in this regard: Wikipedia:Only white people may edit Marskell 20:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
There already is a Christian terrorism page, feel free to join us in contributing there.--TVPR 23:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
No worries. By the way, who says one of them is being tolerated? Just please relax and take it easy instead of spamming articles' talk pages. -- Szvest 23:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™

No offense, but last time I checked Islam isn't a race. There are a lot of blacks, whites, and other races that are muslims. Also, you made a logical fallacy in that your criticism would only make sense if this page were called Arab extremist terrorism. Peace, --Urthogie 08:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Amanda but your silly

[edit] Latest page move

I reverted Irishpunktom's move of this page to Islamic extremist violence. There is no consensus for such a move, and it's likely to be a contentious issue. I suggest it would be better to take it to requested moves if anyone wants a change. Tom Harrison Talk 17:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer this article called plainly "Islamic terrorism". "Islamic extremist terrorism" sounds somewhat strange, as if there were some "Islamic moderate terrorism". Pecher Talk 19:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I think the most accurate one is Islamist terrorism. Cheers -- Szvest 20:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™
I've been staying out of this one -- no time -- but I'll second Szvest's suggestion of Islamist terrorism. This makes it clear that it is not all Islam involved, only the Islamist interpretation of Islam. There are many "extreme" versions of Islam (in fact, every Islamic tradition regards other traditions as extreme, or deviant) and not all of them are Islamist. Islamist seems to be the term that is emerging as the frontrunner for the English word that best describes the Muslim Brotherhood/Qutbi/violent Salafi strand of political thought. Zora 03:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Concur with Szvest and Zora.Timothy Usher 08:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I would like to point out that Christian terrorism is called just that "Christian terrorism" without any circumventing adjective, like "Christianist". Islamic terrorism is terrorism perpetrated in the name of Islam, not in the name of Islamism. Pecher Talk 08:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

At present, the Christian terrorism article is a hodgepodge of totally independent movements that are united only by claiming to act in the name of Christianity. The article was set up by an anon who who started it as a parallel to Islamic terrorism (which existed them). He/she also linked to Religious Terrorism and Terrorism.

However, I think Islamism has more coherence than that. It is not just any violence done in the name of Islam; it is a tradition starting with the Muslim Brotherhood and Qutb. Also Maududi and Shariati -- we really ought to mention them too. But all those thinkers were reading each other, influencing each other. Zora 08:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Introducing the word "Islamism" into the title means applying rather restrictive criteria for inclusion of acts of terror into this article. By this logic, acts of terror perpetrated by individuals in the name of Islam do not fit here unless these individuals are part of an organized movement, like Hamas. In which article will isolated acts of terror fit then? Pecher Talk 09:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Does WP really need articles that survey the acts of isolated loons who claim to be killing in the name of whatever? If someone blows up a building in support of Transcendentalism (a defunct New England intellectual movement), do we need a Transcendentalist terrorism article? Maybe we just need an article about insert name of loon.

If you say that there's something particularily Islamic (or Christian or Buddhist or Jewish) about terrorism, such that it deserves its own article, aren't you making the argument that the religion in question is inherently violent? That also is a current, trendy, and usually anti-Islamic current of opinion. Zora 13:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Zora, we really need articles that describe terrorist acts commited in the name of Islam. It's up to the reader to decide whether Islam is inherently violent or not; we cannot suppress certain material on the grounds that a reader may conclude based on it that Islam is a violent religion. Pecher Talk 16:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree w/ Pecher on this. However, i'd rather talk about Islamist extremist terrorism (in Italics) instead of a straight one. I dunno about the technicalities though! -- Szvest 17:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™
Zora, I disagree. Two things. First, violent acts perpetrated under the auspices of Islam contribute (albeit negatively) to the whole of Islam in some way. Regardless of how Muslims respond to these acts, they are petrated under the guise of Islam. Second, these acts contribute to the view which non-Muslims take to Islam, hence the adjective Islamic. In both cases, the title facilitates both Muslim and non-Muslim perspectives. It does not, admittedly, protect the reader from his/her own ignorance. NPOV descriptions can sometimes be a bit blunt.
Also, I would disagree with the use of "Islamist" in the title here. Basically, this label places more burden on the editors and reader with little benefit. "Islamism" (label/id-wise) was created as an attempt by myriad Western intellectuals to objectify groups, individuals, etc. who espouse poignant political interpretations of Islam (e.g. the contemporary debate on political Islam is worked out under this and other labels). When you say "Islamism" one would presume you are speaking of an interaction between ideas and social structures (i.e. abstract things really). The term has little usefulness here because this article is focused on violent actions and the direct who/what/why. "Islamism" is not an explanation of or impetus for terrorism - it is really a metatheory of *some* of those factors which contribute to terrorism. Neither does "Islamism" answer the question "what kind of terrorism?" - in fact, it makes this question harder to answer! Lastly, a singular "Islamism" brings a lot of demands upon the editors/readers.
I hope that makes sense. Regardless, since the debate on precisely what Islamism is still rages, it is best to state things without jargon. I hardly see the Western press get their labels right as it is. -Vector4F 01:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
      • "aren't you making the argument that the religion in question is inherently violent?" - Yes, that's exactly the point. You might as well be arguing, "The Christians started the Crusades" and "The Nazis started the Holocaust."

[edit] name

"Islamic extremist terrorism" gets only 929 google hits (mostly to wkipedia) while "Islamic terrorism" is a much more common name geting 1.5 M hits. Zeq 10:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic Terrorist attacks on Hindus, Hindu Holy places and Hindu Temples

By selectively reverting attacks by Islamic Terroists on Hindu Holy places, Hindu temples and selective killing of Hindus in Indian state of Kashmir, What does User:Anonymous editor want to proove? Were they not muslims? Are attacks like these not Terrorism? Is selective killing of Hindus not based on religion? How attacks like these are different from other examples of attack in that article? - Holy Ganga talk 11:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Please read the fourth paragraph
Islamic extremist violence is not synonymous with all terrorist activities committed by Muslims. Nationalist, separatist, and occasionally Marxist-Leninist organizations in the Muslim world often derive inspiration from secular ideologies. These are not well described as either Islamic extremist or Islamist.
So the case of Kashmiri separatists fighting to separate Indian controlled kashmir from India does not mean it's Islamic extremist terrorism just because they are mostly Muslim. The other attacks are not proven to be linked to Muslim groups or sourced. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 15:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Please read this from the article: "The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank, every major suicide-terrorist campaign — over 95 percent of all the incidents — has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw." [27]
World has declared major terrorist orginazations of Kashmir as Terrorist and not freedom fighters and their attacks as acts of Terrorism. . Here, we are concerned with Terrorist attacks. How can you justify that Terrorist attack on Hindu holy city, hindu temples and Hindus is not an act of Terrorism? How can selective killing of hindus is not an attack of terrorism? How can you distinguish between these attacks and other examples of attack here? Do you want to hide all terrorist attacks on Indians and Hindus under this so called "freedon fighters"? All three examples of attacks are proven. Instead of deleating them selectively, you should ask for citations. No example here is with citation but you selectively removed Terrorist attacks on Hindus , Hindu Holy city and Hindu temples. Regards - Holy Ganga talk 13:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Where the attacks desgined to initate a global caliphate? - If so, prove it, if not, it does not belong here.--Irishpunktom\talk 23:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Attack on Hindu holy city, attack on famous Hindu temples and selective killing of minority Hindus in a muslim majority locality are some enough reasons to proove that these are not just Terrorist attacks by Muslims against Indians but Islamic extremist terrorism against India and Hinduism. How can you differentiate between these attacks and other examples of attacks here? If you can, first of all try to answer questions raised above. If they are not Islamic terrorist attacks then Proove your point logically.- Holy Ganga talk 06:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This edit, (rm Indian POV, pls give verifiable international links), removed

I don't understand how exactly this constitutes Indian POV, or what the problem with the links is. I've restored the material. Tom Harrison Talk 01:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 9/11 Image

Anonymous editor, please stop trying to bury the image of 9/11 attacks somewhere in the middle of the article. Pecher Talk 11:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The September 11, 2001 Attacks were done in the name of Islam by the terrorist group Al Qaida. I believe they are an example of Islamic extremist terrorism. Why can't we include a picture of the attack in this article?--Sefringle 02:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
September 11, 2001 Attacks picture must be part of this article as it is the most notable example of Islamic extremist terrorism. Hypnosadist 18:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categorizing

Regarding the recent revert wars, a couple of thoughts:

  • To Anon, a terrorist group can be both separatist and religious (see The troubles). I wrote the "Nationalist, separatist, and occasionally Marxist-Leninist organizations..." line but it wasn't meant as a didactic division ("if it's separatist, it's out"). Attacks within Kashmir may be "tactical" and not necessarily appropriate to this page but, for instance, the attack at Varanasi is I think fairly unequivocally a sectarian terrorist act.
  • That said: lists of "bad things" are notoriously unstable and likely to cause revert wars on just about any article. I'm having that confirmed to me again and again as I move about this place. One solution would be to reduce, remove, or turn the list to prose. Marskell 17:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nationalism vs Fundamentalism

There seems to be some confusion about revolutionaries and mujahids. For instance, Kashmiri nationalists include Hindus as well. I have removed some of the baseless POV. Will do more soon. Anwar 21:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you want to do, give reliable sources to proove your point. No major edits are acceptable without discussions. - Holy Ganga talk 21:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
You should be the one who gives sources to the rest of us for including conspiracy theories. Anwar 21:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
What conspiracy theories, specifically? How does Kashmiri nationalism relate to whether those groups are [also] IET groups? El_C 21:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
HG refuses to recognise the difference between ideology-driven fundamentalism (which is the gist of this article) and plain old nationalist struggles. See his conspiracy theories. HG believes LET and JEM aim to destroy India and annihilate Hinduism. Plus there are no links to support this theory. Infact, I suspect it is based on the popular stereotype in India that all bomb blasts are planned in Pakistan. HG refuses to see Kashmiri as an entity separate from Pakistani. Also, Sri Lanka is a Buddhist nation pitted against Hindu terrorists like the recently EU-banned LTTE. Anwar 21:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
A factual correction: the LTTE is not a Hindu organisation. It includes a good number of Christians in high positions - for instance, a certain Anton Balasingham. Christians have been closely associated with Tamil nationalism in Sri Lanka - SJV Chelvanayakam, its founding father, was Christian. -- Arvind 23:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
That's quite true. But India labels and bans LTTE as a terrorist outfit even though they have a standing army, navy and airforce manning 75% of the Sri Lankan coast. Anwar 02:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Both of those are banned by US ,UN, India, UK and even Pakistan because they are IET. [30] [31]. You may have asked for citations (thats why wikipedia invented this function) or took part in discussions but here again from whole article (which is lacking citations) you selectively picked and reverted without discussions.- Holy Ganga talk 22:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
The point I want to advance is for this article to remain consistent with what is being said on the Lashkar-e-Toiba —tagged for cleanup for a year now(!)— and the Jaish-e-Mohammed entries. El_C 22:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Both of those articles on LET and JEM are sham. No independent sources were provided. Also, in such delicate matters, its better to ignore claims of the parties involved lest we be flooded with contradictory news accounts. For instance in the case of Kashmir, all Indian sources are irrelevant as they are the one who brand nationalists as fundamentalists. There is a conflict of interest. Only independent international sources like the websites of UN, EU, etc. should be considered. That's why I removed Times of India link. Remember, the victim cannot be the witness for the same crime. Anwar 22:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, Just because Anwar thinks that one of the most reputed and high circulated newspaper "Times of India" is biased, so he has every right to remove and delete whole material. What is the use of talk pages? Why are they here? Did you discussed that matter? How many more internatonal citations you need? [32]. That was the site of police investigation. Nobody have problem with links of American press calling Osama as Terrorist but you have problem with Indin press calling those demonic unwanted terrorists of India as terrorists. - Holy Ganga talk 22:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Because, Now citaions are avaliable and i will add more if required, so these two major IET groups should be readded. - Holy Ganga talk 22:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
You are asking for citations but in your haste you even riverted information which was with citation [24 September]] 2002 - Machine Gun attack on Hindu temple in Ahmedabad, India. 31 dead, 86 injured. [33] and this once again prooved like a previous article that you are selectively attacking and riverting.- Holy Ganga talk 22:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think now anyone should have any objections. Added 7 refs to support each and every claim. Will try to improve further with more points and refs. Regards, -Holy Ganga talk 12:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Al-Qaeda "accused"?

"Al-Qaeda . . . is accused of committing terrorism in a number of countries in Africa, the Middle East, Europe. and Indonesia. It is also accused of orchestrating the September 11, 2001 attacks against the United States."

Haven't they claimed responsibility for some attacks? I'd think that wether or not you want to argue over if they actually had a role in 9/11 is irrelevent to the fact that they should have at some point taken credit for doing something. Didn't they unequivically say that they had a hand in blowing up US embassies in Africa? "Accused" should be changed to something along the lines of "claimed responsibility for".

Say "responsible", it's been proven Al-Qaeda did the attacks. So stop the conspiracy bs. (Anonymous User) 22 June 2006

[edit] The verses of the Qur'an

On other articles it had been established that the Quran is a primary source, open to very different interpretations by different scholars. Thus for an editor to select verses and attribute meanings to them relative to ongoing conflicts amounts to original research. For this reason, I'm removing the usage of the Quran unless other secondary sources can be used to support the content. A fact tag wouldn't do the job as the content implies Wikipedia's interpreting religious scripture. Finding secondary sources should be easy enough. His Excellency... 14:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I was surprised when I came across that huge bank of quotes and didnt know how to respond to it. I think your idea is a very good response. Without secondary sources that explain the way text is interpreted (and allowing room for alternative interpretations/argument) the quotes don't improve the article at allFyntan 06:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Yet when we add info from the terrorist's such as Mohammed Reza Taheriazar (see below) about the lines in the Quran as justifying mass murder they get deleted!Hypnosadist 20:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This is why people fail to understand what we're up against...the Quran IS the primary source of guidance for terrorists. The fact is that none of those quotes were ever abrogated and are continued to rally thousands to the call of Jihad every day.Culmo80 20:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)culmo80

[edit] Inappropriate reference to Marxism-Leninism

I am concerned with the following sentence: "Some terrorist activities committed by Muslims do not fall into the category of Islamic extremist terrorism: Nationalist, separatist, and occasionally Marxist-Leninist organizations in the Muslim world often derive inspiration from secular ideologies." Please provide me with a reference that justifies the inclusion of "Marxist-Leninist organizations." Prompt and unequivocal justification is necessary if that sentence is to remain the same. Firewall62 (talk) 10:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note: I corrected the aforementioned problem. Without the inclusion of a reliable source, it is simply absurd to attribute acts of terrorism to Marxist-Leninist organizations; the history of Marxism-Leninism is starkly characterized by a pronounced opposition to terrorism. Consider, e.g., Trotsky's "Why Marxists Oppose Individual Terrorism" (1909). Indeed, the use of terrorism in revolutionary endeavors is a point of conflict between Marxist-Leninists (who oppose it) and anarchists (who do not). Firewall62 (talk) 07:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


First of all Trotsky fell from power and was only one voice. If you read "The World Was Going Our Way" by Mitrokhin and Andrew, you'll find that yes, Marxist-Leninist nations DID support terrorists, namely Middle Eastern groups that they could direct to attack Western interests. Don't forget that Carlos the Jackel received some amount of support from the Soviet Union. Islamic groups DID receiving backing from the USSR which was a Marxist-Leninist state, was it not?Culmo80 20:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)culmo80

[edit] Stupid title

The "extremist" ought to be removed from both Islamic extremist terrorism and Christian extremist terrorism. Yes, the terrorists are a small minority of any religion. But "extremist" simply doesn't communicate that fact successfully. Not does the article title need to communicate it, that is the articles job.

Infact, I don't think one can justify that claim that "all *individuals* who cary out or lead terrorist acts with a religious agenda are religious extremists", as the religious agenda is only part of the picture for any given individual. Racism, individual grievances, ignorance, etc. all play an important role both for the actors & the leaders (and the leaders can have even more complex & less religious motivations).

We are using slightly-incorrect weasel words in these two titles. 134.214.102.33 15:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Not really...you ever hear of a moderate terrorist? Radical and extremists do correctly identify most terrorists because when you use violence and such tactics that they use to further their agendas...that's rather extreme.Culmo80 20:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)culmo80

[edit] list of attacks very incomplete

We should probably include the 1983 attack on the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut that killed 241. Ya think? (unknown)

I agree here, the list ist very incomplete and US-focused and post-911 focused. I personally remember dozends of additional attacks in europe between 1970 and 2001:
Do you know that french subways where bombed at least a dozend times in the 90ths?
Or that the vienna airport was occupied by armed forces in the 80ths?
What about the kidnapping of the Achille_Lauro? The Terroism against french citizens around the algerian war in the 50ths?
The terrorism through the algerian civil war in the 90ths?
Terrorism Campaigns in India are still the most deadly known?
East Timor?
The Philipines?
Armenia?

Crass Spektakel 10:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

One of the huge problems with this article is that people want to add all sorts of wildly off-topic events just because some of the people involved happened to be ethnically Muslim or Arab. Achille Lauro involved the PLF (i.e. a secular group). Algeria was a war against colonialism etc. --Lee Hunter 14:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rename

Lets rename this to Terrorism attributed to Muslims. This solves the issue of if it really is terrorism and if "Islam" is involved. --Striver 19:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is terrorism. Thers is no issue either about that fact or about the fact that most terrorist acts are caused by Islam. Cerebral Warrior 15:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree but these acts are done in the name of "Land recovery from fachist invaders". Media links it with Islam b/c it sells more . And obviously they cant say that all of this is happening b.c of their government's policies. I think Muslim Extremist terrorism will be better . Other wise we should have Judaic terrorism & Christianity terrorism too . F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 16:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah the victims deserved to be killed defence F.A.Y! Ok lets see if a few FACTS can set you straight (they won't but its really for the rest of the wikipedians out there) about how much the victims deserved to be killed. Of course attempting to talk about innocents in the west is out because there deaths are the governments fault in your mind. So lets go to Iraq, where over 10 barbers have been killed in the name of "Land recovery from fachist invaders", no wait i got that wrong they have been killed because (wait for it this crime is up there with pedophilia) they shave mens beards off! (ps this was reported by the BBC not LGF). Lets move to another country involved in islamic terrorisms war on us, Thailand, where "Land recovery from fachist invaders" takes the form of terrorists many from indonesia killing native buddist Thai's for the crime of Pig Farming or collecting rubber tree sap off the land has been theirs for THOUSANDS of years. This list goes on and on. I'll believe islam has nothing to do with terrorism when suicide bombers are no-longer video'd with a Koran in one hand and an assult-rifle in the other, but until then i'll just call it the religion of peace and everone else will laugh at that sick joke. Hypnosadist 16:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Ps as to Judaic terrorism & Christianity terrorism please create them as ibet there is anough notable cases for articles like Zionist political violence and pro-life groups already have pages on wikipedia. (My bet is you won't create these pages and 3 months from now you'll be back bitching and moaning that only islam has terrorism pages ascociated with it). Hypnosadist 16:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Dude lets go to Iraq, How many people were being killed there before the invasion . And how do you get the information about who is killing who . Buddhist thais...you mean thais arnt doing anything there. Beards, pigs... this is stupid . Beleve me , as soon as I create Judaic terrorism, & add a single verst from bible , a bunch of right wing zionists will delete the article calling it anti-semite . This has happened a gazillion times .There is a good reason why this article is named Zionist political violence , its supposed to imply that there is no such thing as masmurder in the name of Torah. I dont have time for this nonsense . Feel free to think whatever you want to . Weak minds are supposed to folow . F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 21:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Heres an article from the BBC about the beard related killings [34]. Hypnosadist 01:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
This article should remain Islamic extremeist terrorismas thats what it is, as for Zionist political violence i think it should be called Zionist extremist terrorism. If a renaming comes up feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page and i'll happily argue for that.Hypnosadist 12:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
The page name has been problematic from the start. It appears that there are few cites to the term outside of links back to this page. A better name would be "Islamic political violence."--Cberlet 18:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, so in the spirit of WP:Bold, I've renamed it. Armon
Every name has been problematic. This one has its imperfections but you'll find the rationale for it above and in the archives. Simply up and renaming this is probably not the best move.
Note, "Islamic political violence" suffers, as it would seem to exclude terrorism of a specifically religious nature. We've gone round this merry-go-round many times. Marskell 11:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

OK too bold -but I don't understand your point about "it would seem to exclude terrorism of a specifically religious nature." Isn't that obvious in Islamic? I think the problem with extremist and terrorism is that what's extreme, and what's terrorism, is subject to one's POV, whereas the fact that it's political violence in the "name of Islam" is indisputable. Seems like a better, more NPOV title for the subject. See Zionist political violence or Palestinian political violence as other examples. Armon 12:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

What about "religious violence in the 'name of Islam'"? Marskell 12:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
OK I think I see where we differ. I consider all violence of this type to have broadly political ends, even if the perps only use religious justifications. They may kill infidels for drawing cartoons, unveiling, drinking, whatever, but their ultimate goal is the hegemony of their belief system. Armon 13:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I.e., their "ultimate goal" is religious. Including "political" as an adjective in the title can be a straightjacket. Sorry if I'm being brief, but really, look at the last two archives.
FWIW, I consider "all violence of this type to have broadly political ends" to be true only insofar as Westerners extrapolate their notion of the "political" to every context they can. The Danish-Mohammed cartoon controversy was political, sure—the anger was directed at a nation-state, which had to "politically" respond. But pause and think: the outburst was a) inchoate b) secterian/religious. Attaching a political dimension to it is a post-hoc Western enterprise. There was no "end" involved, beyond "buy a Danish flag and burn it."
Of course, buying a Danish flag and burning it, isn't necessarily terrorism, which raises other questions. Should we have two pages to distinguish organized, political violence from semi-organized, religious violence? Where (to use an example from above) do church burnings in Pakistan fit? Where (lest it seem I'm only using Muslims as perpetrators) do the massacres of Muslims by Hindus in India fit? Not "terrorism", but surely "terroristic". Perhaps we do need different pages--but until we have them, "political" in the title limits this page. Marskell 22:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Qur'an Interpretations

I don't think this part is well-written. It just lists bunch of verses without giving references as to where and when were these verses quoted or used by extremists. I have removed these verses and I have conducted a search to find the verses and the interpretaions that the extremists really used. To make it a balanced section I included the interpretaions that moderate Muslim scholars have to counter these extremist interpretations. Any comments? Please feel free to discuss it with me. Marwan123 10:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What's the point?

There is like 10 different articles on basically the same thing. And honestly, is it really fair to use terms like "Islamic terrorism", "Islamic fascism", "Islamic extremism", "Islamofascism", "Jihadists"? It's kind of ridiculous, by putting Islam there you put it on trial just because some idiots want to blow things and people up. Every other religion and race gets the luxury of it just being some whackos, but not Muslims. The argument that most Muslims are not terrorists but most terrorists are Muslim doesn't fit. If you are going to use one anti-Muslim epithet, atleast pick one and enough with all the nonsense. I could say something like most child molesters are middle age white men or most gangmembers are young black and Latino youths and then insinuate things from there.


That's because it's such a large problem nobody is sure how to identify it for online encyclopedias. Why doesn't the argument "not all Muslims are terrorists but.." fit? Is it not true? And you're comparing apples and oranges. There is one key factor that connects the terrorists who tried to blow up the WTC in 1993 with the ones who blew up the embassies in 1998 and the ones we are facing now...Islam. The only thing that connects child-molesters is their sick actions. And Islam isn't a "race", it's a faith.Culmo80 20:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)culmo80

[edit] Student newspapers are not reliable sources

Because student papers do not even remotely meet the requirements of of WP:RS I'm deleting the lengthy chunk of quotes from the Qu'ran. Just because someone wrote something somewhere doesn't make it a legitimate source for anything. This is WP policy and common sense. It also supposedly comes from a guy who drove his car into a crowd of students. Perhaps this belongs in his own article but not in a general article like this. --Lee Hunter 16:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually it meets the all the requirements for a provider of verifiable primary source info, the document is undisputed. This is a letter to the Daily tar heel to be published and the source is a pdf of the original document.Hypnosadist 17:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
This section is to long and probably only needs a few of the quran quotes but wholesale deletion is not appropriate as most jihadies arn't take alive so we don't get their POV.Hypnosadist 17:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually guys we need a more scientific approach to this section. We can't just go and copy and paste an opinion of somone who is biased against Islam and claim that this how the extremists interpret Quran. They sure have their interpretaions and Fatwas that justify their acts in their opinion and we need to address that not what Mohammed Reza Taheriazar said.

Osama Bin Laden has issued a whole fatwa with verses and interpretations and there is not single mention of that. Marwan123 21:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Marwan how is someone who attempts to murder people with a car in the name of islam, "somone who is biased against Islam"?Hypnosadist 21:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
A better question might be: how has this 23-year-old university student who grew up in the US and was into driving fast cars and smoking lots of pot and one day went crazy and tried to run over some people, how is it that this guy's letter to a student newspaper has been selected to explain the theological basis for Islamic terrorism? --Lee Hunter 21:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
This ones simple; he's a terrorist (just thankfully crap at it) and this his theological basis for his terrorism.Hypnosadist 22:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
First of all, we have the question of whether he is an actual terrorist or, as seems apparent from the WP article, just a drunken, stoned loser who had a hate on for Christians. Secondly, he was apparently not much of a Muslim. So we have a guy who wasn't really a terrorist, wasn't really much of a Muslim and we're quoting him at length as if his thoughts were somehow representative of Islamic terrorists. Staggering. --Lee Hunter 22:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
"drunken, stoned loser" really? you know the last time he drank or smoked pot? I think not! "he was apparently not much of a Muslim" really? You can judge him on that because of what knowledge of him and what understanding of islam? Just because he failed to kill people you say he wasn't really a terrorist, so how many people do you have to kill to be one? Whats staggering is the lenghts people will go to cover up facts!Hypnosadist 02:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Even if he killed people it doesn't make him a terrorist. He was an unstable individual who went on a rampage, much like a number of "Christians" did after 9/11, attacking people who looked like they might be Muslims. Were they "Christian terrorists"? Should we look to them for biblical quotes like "an eye for an eye"?--Lee Hunter 13:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
"unstable" ahhhh! so terroists are stable then?
"who went on a rampage, much like a number of "Christians" did after 9/11, attacking people who looked like they might be Muslims. Were they "Christian terrorists"? Should we look to them for biblical quotes like "an eye for an eye"?" If they claim they claim they did it in the name of Jesus and give quotes like "an eye for an eye" then they should be in Cristian extremist terrorism, YES! See how simple it is! If someone does an act of terrorism in the name of there religion they are a religious terrorist, simple!Hypnosadist 16:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Are terrorists stable? With a few exceptions, I would say probably yes. What we know of Taheriazar is that he was guy who was into heavy drinking, smoking lots of pot and driving too fast. Not the typical terrorist profile if you ask me. No connections to an organized terrorist group. Yes, he committed an act of violence, but acts of violence are not inherently acts of terrorism. --Lee Hunter 17:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

If you can live the current edit (your one)of the Mohammed Reza Taheriazar section i can.Hypnosadist 21:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marwan heres some OBL quotes

  1. 25th sept 2001 [35]
  2. 19th jan 2006 [36]
  3. 16th dec 2004 [37]
  4. 29th oct 2004 [38]
  5. 7th may 2004 [39]
  6. 15th april 2004 [40]

that should do you for a start Marwan.Hypnosadist 03:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Osama bin Laden is not an established Islamic scholar, his quotes mean shit. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 21:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah the classic first line of defence against the facts, osama not a scholar!
We are quoting terrorists not scholars, whats your next proxie argument?
PS this is what always happens Marwan!Hypnosadist 22:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
What in the world are you talking about? I am not against presenting Osama quotes in this article. They must, however, be explained as to portray the fact that Osama is not a scholar, his words/fatwas have no impact on the Muslim community.. etc. etc. Hypno, please assume good faith. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 22:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
"his words/fatwas have no impact on the Muslim community" pull the other one it has bells on!Hypnosadist 22:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Hypno, The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page, not these personal attacks. Before I continue, I must ask how your ridicule of my beliefs is relevant to discussing changes to this article. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 22:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I was answering your claim that "his(osama bin ladin) words/fatwas have no impact on the Muslim community". That was not ridicule but a questioning of a belief not in the quran (a sura) but one in your head.
Ah the classic anything a say that is possibly critical of islam (and that wasn't) in any way is a personal attack gambit, and after two posts excellent.Hypnosadist 22:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I refuse to speak with you unless you start assumming good faith and cease the personal attacks. If you keep doing so I will request arbitration RfC. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 22:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
3 for 3 kirby! Stop proving me right, i did not ridicule your faith!Hypnosadist 23:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I flagellate myself for going back on my word, but I must state this. You, not satisfied with violating Wikipedia policy, now commit logical fallacies about the word faith. Are you done polemicising, and are you ready to contribute to my goal of making this a better article? Please respond truthfully and without any personal attacks, if at all possible. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 23:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
The creators of this website might not think that false aligations of personal attacks arn't personal attacks but i think they are. Where to you get off lieing about me and what i said, how possibly is;
"his words/fatwas have no impact on the Muslim community" pull the other one it has bells on!
Ridiculing islam?Hypnosadist 02:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Have you matured enough to follow Wikipedia policies and guidlines? If not, I'm not going to respond. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 02:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Stop lieing and makeing personal attacks and answer the question how possibly is;
"his words/fatwas have no impact on the Muslim community" pull the other one it has bells on!
Ridiculing islam?Hypnosadist 13:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with ridicule of Islam. It has to do with ridiculing of moi. What purpose does your "pull the other one it has bells on" serve, besides being an incitement? How much would be lost from this discussion if that phrase was removed altogether? How much would be gained from that statement being added? It is from these questions that my conclusion, that it was a direct attack on my person for no reason other than for the sake of attacking, was drawn. I am not a Muslim. I am not Iranian. I am a Wikipedian. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 01:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I was harsh and sarcastic with my responce its because i found the statement either naive or silly. As you are iranian you will know that due to the War on Terror anywhere up to a million people have died because of OBL's words and the American reactions to them (and their impact).Hypnosadist 02:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further reading

I've removed the following books because they don't seem to have anything to do with the subject of the article:

In other words, they don't seem to be on the subject of Islamic terrorism. --Lee Hunter 13:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


Unless you've read the books how can you remove them? Ever hear "don't judge a book by it's title? I've read the second one and it does indeed address terrorism but it also address Islam in general and how our enemies (the Islamic terrorists) view things.Culmo80 20:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)culmo80

[edit] I propose a move merge to with Islamist political violence Political violence and Religious violence

The current title of the article, uses two POV terms: "extremist", and "terrorism". Looking at the Wikipedia article on extremism, it states "Extremism is a term used to describe the actions or ideologies of individuals or groups outside the perceived political center of a society; or otherwise claimed to violate common standards of ethics and reciprocity. [emphasis mine]". Wikipedia, with the policy of presenting a neutral point of view, should not perceive or claim extremism for the reader. Let the reader themselves decide whether or not these groups are extremists or not. I don't even want to begin to comment on the word "terrorism" as I don't want to be accused of editing the Wikipedia article to skew my view here. So I propose that "terrorism" be replaced with "violence". Also, the word "Islamic" also objectifies a POV as it assumes that Wikipedia takes the stance that these actions are "Islamic". And finally, most extremists, as told on the extremism article, are politically motivated, so it would be safe to replace extremist with the neutral term political. Anyone else care to share their thoughts on the matter? --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 22:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

  1. "Islamic" Wikipedia does not make the claim this is islamic terrorism, the people who do it say its islamic.
  2. "political" this is probably a good change.
  3. "terrorism" has a clear un definition now an we are covering that although that should be made clear in the article.
Finally there should also be an article called Islamist political violence and this could cover the sectarian tortures and killings carried out in Iraq and around the world that did not make it to the "major league" of terrorism as Lee Hunter has argued about the tar heel terrorist.Hypnosadist 22:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Even if the people who do it claim it is Islamic, Wikipedia should not say that it is Islamic. Presenting the view of the people who do such things as the view of the article itself is a violation of Wikipedia policies.

And reguarding your "clear UN definition", that's still a violation of Wikipedia policies because we are not to present the UN's point of view on terrorism as the view of the article itself. Please see this article for further reasoning. Of course, we can still say that the UN claims that terrorists are X, just as we can say that the people who commit such actions claim that X actions are Islamic. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 23:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

If you can't call it Islamic how can it be called islamist is that just not another claim by wikipedia?Hypnosadist 02:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm.. good point. A better idea then, would be to leave that out of the article name entirely. Let's just merge this article's contents with religious violence and political violence. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 02:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I can't possibly see any reasonable reason why. There are finally a few good religious terrorism articles coming together, and you want to merge all of them into one, more politically correct, such? --TVPR 11:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

What does this have to do with political correctness? And I already presented reasonable reasons as to why the article should be removed. If you disagree, please explain. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 07:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, "politically motivated violence" rings more politically correct than Christian terrorism or Islamic terrorism in my ears, but, as you're sure to point out, that's my personal - and thus biased - opinion. However good your points for not calling this article "Islamic extremist terrorism", foremost the point that "The current title of the article, uses two POV terms: "extremist", and "terrorism"", the whole rename business was organized miles back in this discussion. I'm still not certain adding the "extremist" to the title was a god call, but at least it should soothe non-extremist muslims who do not condone terrorism. Same thing for christian terrorism, where there was a huge outcry from the fundamentalists who give a damn that the article be deleted altogether, as "Christianity is not compatible with terrorism"... But enough of that story, bygones etc., I'm against merging all this down to "Politically motivated violence" or similar because, mostly, it isn't. It's religious. My arguments:
  1. It may have been politically motivated in Northern Ireland, not so in, for instance, India.
  2. If anyone can make Osama go on record stating he's not religiously motivated, but politically, I'll be impressed. Also, it is the claims of the perpetrators that is interresting, not the rest of the worlds' assumptions.
  3. Although agreeing on the point of "what defines terrorism and not", I will not accept a rename of this series of articles to "violence". If I beat up a christian, muslim, hindu or taoist because I disagree with their religious beliefs, it would not be terrorism (I think we all can agree on this). If said religious person was a very prominent (notable in WP terms) person, say, George W. Bush, it'd be a very much notable incident, and fit right in with "Religiously motivated violence". However, I don't think it belongs in an article side-by-side with the 9\11 airplanings, IRA bombings, Lebanese rocketeerings of Israel and following war (although we could put this in with "politically motivated") and so forth. All this would, with a "religiously motivated violence", come together in a "list of notable examples".
  4. There already is an article regarding religiously motivated terrorism in general, no need for another. Merging all articles on various divisions of theism and these's acts of violence\terrorism would just result in one huge overlapping article with the potential of very much info getting lost in the process. A parallel to this would be merging every battle and major incident of WW2 into the main article, thus losing the big picture, and generally just messing everything up.

Please hit me back if you think I'm being very unreasonable here, but I do think we need to have the structure of today in the articles.--TVPR 09:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"Same thing for christian terrorism, where there was a huge outcry from the fundamentalists who give a damn that the article be deleted altogether, as "Christianity is not compatible with terrorism"..." this is just another example of NPOV being used to delete FACTS because they are not liked. This is an encyclopedia and wikilawyering is constantly being used by Theists in particular to force their POV over everyone elses'. IF muslims want to pretend that there is no such thing as islamic terrorism thats ok, its the deletetion of FACTS from wikipedia i have a problem with. This name change is being proposed to hide and mitigate the terrorism commited by the groups mentioned in this article.Hypnosadist 13:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Many of these questions have been discussed ad nauseum already (see the archive of the page move discussion at the top of this page) but here again are my thoughts for what little they are worth. This article attempts to tie together a very diverse and disjointed list of conflicts and events under what certain editors believe is a common theme (they all, in some way, involve acts of violence by Muslims). My opinion is that this is an arbitrary decision which has more to do with the current moral panic in the western world re. Islam and with the attempts by some editors to reinforce this hysteria by heaping as much "scary Islam stuff" as they can into large muddy pots. Among the unfortunate side effects of tossing everything into the Islamatic blender is that the focus is shifted from a deep understanding of specific insurgencies, militant groups and terrorist organizations. It also creates the false impression in the reader that there is a single story about terrorism and Islam. --Lee Hunter 16:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is far too large to merge anywhere else. Jayjg (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

TVPR: Who cares if it sounds more politically correct? The goal of Wikipedia is not political correctness, but rather NPOV. If a consequence of that is your perceived notions of political correctness, then so be it. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 03:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* All I meant with that was that it seems to me your suggestion has less to do with NPOV and reality and established policy etc. than to achieve political correctness. Now, that's my bias, and I said so before, quite clearly stating that this was my biased POV and nothing else - so could we please move on to the actual arguments I proposed? Nice and tidy numbered list?--TVPR 04:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
How does this have to do with political correctness? I never once brought up that topic, it was others who did. I explained my reasoning using Wikipedia policies.

Also, here's my response to your numbers:

1. Ok, so if it isn't politically motivated, then, like I said "Let's just merge this article's contents with religious violence and political violence."

2. See 1.

3. Therein lies our disagreement. I think it is perfectly acceptable for someone who mugs George Bush for religious reasons to be in the same article as hijackers and bombers. We should include notable occurrences, and let the reader decide if they are important or not.

4. That religiously motivated terrorism article needs to be updated and brought to better standing. What better way to do this than to merge this article's contents into it?

PS Hypnosadist, please be civil if you want to be taken seriously. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 04:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hm... Allright, but what about the articles on other religions' terrorists? --TVPR 09:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
What about them? he same thing applies. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 04:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi there Kirbytime. I disagree with you to merge this article to religious violence and political violence.

Islamic terrorism IS an example of religious terrorism, which IS a kind of religious violence. You can say that religious violence includes religious terrorism and therefore Islamic terrorism should have its own article.

"Religious terrorism refers to terrorism justified or motivated by religion and is a form of religious violence." from article religious terrorism Sandakanboy 04:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm against using the term terrorism. It's a loaded term and using it is a violation of of a neutral point of view. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 04:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

And i find not using terrorism for acts of terrorism highly POV.Hypnosadist 14:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
^^^You expect me to collaborate in improving this article when you have an attitude like that? How old are you? Twelve? And this is not an insult this is an honest question since you seem to be immature when it comes to understanding opposing viewpoints. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 07:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Kirby add names to your insults(the twelve year old gag) so that we know to whom you speak. NPOV means that all pov's are noted not just the most PC view. Christian terrorism is covered under Christian extremist terrorism that is the same title structure. In both cases the word extremist is used in order to try and separate the terrorist from "ordinary decent christians/muslims" and is really unneeded.Hypnosadist 15:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
What insults? I have not insulted a soul here, and if you were offended then I humbly apologize. Now, you seem to misunderstand the Wikipedia policy on NPOV, I recommend reading it again. Wikipedia does NOT note ALL points of view, that's garbage! Plus, we're supposed to have a neutral point of view. Have you read Hitler's talkpage? They talk about how they don't need to call Hitler evil, they let the reader deduce that himself. Let's look at the Hitler article and see what we find:

(April 20, 1889 – April 30, 1945) was Chancellor of Germany from 1933, and "Führer" (leader) of Germany from 1934 until his death. He was leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or NSDAP), better known as the Nazi Party.

Hitler gained power in a Germany facing crisis after World War I, using charismatic oratory and propaganda, appealing to economic need of the lower and middle classes, nationalism, anti-Semitism and anti-communism to establish a totalitarian or fascist dictatorship. With a restructured economy and rearmed military, Hitler pursued an aggressive foreign policy with the intention of expanding German Lebensraum ("living space"), which triggered World War II when Germany invaded Poland. At the height of its power, Nazi Germany occupied most of Europe, but it and the Axis Powers were eventually defeated by the Allies.

By then, Hitler's racial policies had culminated in the mass murder of at least eleven million people, including the deliberate genocide of about six million Jews, and the systematic killings of many other groups and nationalities, including Romany people, in what is now known as the Holocaust.

In the final days of the war, Hitler committed suicide in his underground bunker in Berlin with his newlywed wife, Eva Braun.

That's what this article should look like. We shouldn't pass judgments, we should present facts in a neutral tone and let the reader themselves judge who is an extremist, or who is a terrorist. Please, enough with your nonsense about "PC". Just because it disagrees with your POV does not make it "PC". Just because the facts are unfavorable to you does not make it "PC". Just because it follows Wikipedia policy does not make it "PC". So again I ask, how old are you honestly? Are you at least in college? --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 09:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I would support the merger. --Lee Hunter 13:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Kirby stop with the insults! Notice that the hitler article contains the Facts such as the holocaust and WW2, thats why its a good article as well as being NPOV. But here its delete after delete of facts, these terrorists kill in the name of islam FULL STOP, you don't like that then bitch at them not me. How about then the more factually titled Murderers who do it in the name of Islam and then we can let the reader decide if it is terrorism.Hypnosadist 15:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Please show me any insults I have stated. Plus, again you missed the point I was making with the Hitler article. Notice how it doesn't say "The Holocaust was wrong because it caused lots of suffering". That's a violation of "NPOV". The reader decides whether or not the Holocaust was wrong or not. Same thing with WW2. HOwever, if you say that "Organization X is terrorist", that's a violation of NPOV because calling them terrorist is a value judgment. Terrorist is a term with negative connotation, and there are very very few (if any at all?) organizations that consider themselves to be terrorists. And regarding your recomendation of the word "murderer", that's still POV because murder is by definition "premediated deliberate unlawful killing", and thus according to the laws in some jurisdictions someone might be a murderer while someone might be a soldier. "Murderer" is a violation of NPOV because it is not for us to decide what the laws are. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 01:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok how about Killers who do it in the name of Islam then?Hypnosadist 16:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I oppose merging, because of the length of the page and the importance of the topic. I do not care that much about the name, but I have not yet heard one that is better than Islamic extremist terrorism. Tom Harrison Talk 19:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. This is a specific topic, other types of terrorism other than Islamic Extremist Terrorism exist. StevenBao (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting quotes

(I asked DAde to justify his repeated insertion of a long list of quotes. He replied on my talk page so I've taken the liberty of copying his response here so that it can be discussed. --Lee Hunter 17:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC))

There are many reasons why the entire quotes should stay on this page.

1. The quotes are TRUE. 2. The quotes were cited by a MUSLIM. 3. The quotes were cited by a TERRORIST. DAde 17:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi me (Hypnosadist) and Lee have just had this chat (above) and he didn't want it at all (i think?) and i wanted it included due to the notability of home grown terrorists. We reached a compromise of a small paragraph about him with TWO full quran quotes and a link to the pdf of the hand writen letter to the daily tar heel. This provides maximum info in a reasonable space for such a hugh topic. The full expanded list of quotes was too long for this article, Lee how would you feel about a list of the numbers of the verses mentioned? I will revert to the above compromise with Lee.Hypnosadist 20:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Let me put it this way, if we have nothing in this article from Sayyid Qutb who was probably the most influential Islamist philosopher, and nothing from Osama Bin Laden, the most well-known terrorist why are we quoting this corn-fed American kid? If you even consider him a terrorist (which is debatable) he must be the most obscure and least influential terrorist of all time. It's also worth noting that even the Qutb and Bin Laden articles don't extensively quote their subjects. --Lee Hunter 23:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes Osama Bin Laden and Sayyid Qutb should be quoted (quite a lot) and preferentially to Mohammed Reza Taheriazar, i added some sources above with OBL quotes. "Qutb and Bin Laden articles don't extensively quote their subjects" and this should be rectified.Hypnosadist 23:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The topic is the Quran! The capter is called Interpretation of the Quran! But some wikipedians do not allow me to quote all necessary quotes. You can not compromise the Quran.DAde 15:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

We can try. --Lee Hunter 18:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
In fact, why down't we start quoting the Bible in the Christian Terrorism article? I refer of course to the juicier bits of the Old Testament, with the divinely approved incest and murder, not to mention the part where his god-ness basically smites half of Egypt in something as simple as a show of force? It should please anyone wanting to display the nastier sides of any religious texts, and the interpretations of these. --TVPR 05:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Please do!Hypnosadist 05:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I have rm'ed the bit about the student. Totally over-specific and unneeded here. Marskell 13:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree. This topic is a general overview. Anyone who wants to know more about this particular person's thoughts can read the article about him. --Lee Hunter 13:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
He needs to be in this article so you can go to his much longer personal article. The notability is due to his home grown nature, he's never been a refugee or whatever excuse makes the suicide bombing of civilians "normally acceptable" to many POV's. He is the least notable home grown terrorist, i'm looking for the quotes of the 7/7 bombers and the 2 british guys who went to isreal to do bombings (one did the others failed and he was found face down in the sea). Lee are you going to add Osama Bin Laden and Sayyid Qutb quotes?Hypnosadist 15:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
No I'm not going to add bin Laden and Qutb quotes. I only mentioned those two in our earlier discussion to point out the absurdity of quoting an obscure semi-terrorist when we don't quote people who are actually well-known and influential. Since I think the article arises from a flawed premise, I don't have an interest in adding anything to it. I'm just trying to moderate some of the excesses. --Lee Hunter 15:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

flawed premise?Hypnosadist 17:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, flawed. To save energy, I'll repeat what I wrote further up this page "This article attempts to tie together a very diverse and disjointed list of conflicts and events under what certain editors believe is a common theme (they all, in some way, involve acts of violence by Muslims). My opinion is that this is an arbitrary decision which has more to do with the current moral panic in the western world re. Islam and with the attempts by some editors to reinforce this hysteria by heaping as much "scary Islam stuff" as they can into large muddy pots. Among the unfortunate side effects of tossing everything into the Islamatic blender is that the focus is shifted from a deep understanding of specific insurgencies, militant groups and terrorist organizations. It also creates the false impression in the reader that there is a single story about terrorism and Islam." --Lee Hunter 19:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
To save energy; jihad is the common theme. Hypnosadist 19:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, there you go. I rest my case. --Lee Hunter 19:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
"Well, there you go. I rest my case" ???Hypnosadist 19:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm again referring to the idea that there's a dime-store thread on which we can string a wildly divergent batch of incidents, political struggles and miscellaneous crazies from hither and yon and say it's all "jihad" or it's all "islamic terrorism". This suits the moral panic of the time but it's not a very good premise for an article. --Lee Hunter 20:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Then you simply don't comprehend jihad or how that concept is central to jihadies. I am quite capable of understanding that every crime ever commited by a muslim is NOT some part of a grand jihad conspiracy. But there is a reason there is a terrorist group called islamic jihad. Just because you think its un-pc to talk about the failing of anyone who isn't a WASP or there ideas does not stop it existing. You are simply pushing pov this is all made up by the government and the media, i've got the facts but the truth just doesn't seem to be good enough if your un-pc. Hypnosadist 20:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
The flip-side of Lee's coin is that separating political violence and religious violence is often impossible. There's nothing wrong per se with a page documenting terrorism with "Islam" as the broad, unifying thread. We don't have to heap in "scary Islam stuff" at all. We should have a general level survey of the topic. And this does not include what Hypno and DAde (the latter is trolling) are adding. Marskell 19:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
The concept of Deen (Arabic term) means that many muslims see no separation of the political and the religious. What is a "general level survey of the topic".Hypnosadist 19:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The entire quotation is necessary! This is a analysis of the Quran. Only two quotes are too few because it does not show the entire intolerant message of the Quran. My version is still incomplete, but it shows the most important intolerant verses which Taherie cited. I´m disappointed that on wikipedia are so many terror apologists, and so many orwelian politically correct leftists who want to hide the truth.The reeducation efforts of this ideologes will fail! The truth is on my side.DAde 18:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Immediately above is disruption and POINT. A desire to show "the intolerant message of the Quran" is not a basis on which to add content. Hypno, frankly, you haven't a single logical argument above. This isn't about American Islamic terrorists, and even if it were, a bungled attack by a lone lunatic wouldn't qualify. Throw him in the list of attacks with a single sentence if you feel it so pertinent. Marskell 19:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Its simple he learnt about jihad then he did jihad, He says that!Hypnosadist 19:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Ya, so? Editorial discretion means choosing things that rise to a certain level of prominence and will have staying power. He's a curiosity, nothing more. Marskell 19:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

@ Marskell The topic of this article is islamic terrorism. The intention of the "Interpretation of the Quran" chapter is to show the Quranic justification which is used by islamic terrorists. But you don´t want to see intolerant quran verses because you are a terrorism apologist.DAde 19:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

DAde, avoid personal attacks. If you'd like to get blocked, you're well on your way. Marskell 19:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Hypno. Which quotes are you refering to - lee wouldn't revert the paragraph and two quotes he has agreed? -- Szvest 21:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
From the top of this thread "We reached a compromise of a small paragraph about him with TWO full quran quotes and a link to the pdf of the hand writen letter to the daily tar heel." it was lee's edit of the long list of quotes down to two and my replacing a jihadwatch link with the pdf of his hand writen letter to the daily tar heal (student newspaper). I reverted back to this edit when DAde tried to reinstate the long list of quran quotes, along with lee and others. Then when an editor deletes the whole section, not only does lee not revert back to the agreed "paragraph and two quotes" but he complements the editor on removeing it. That i feel this is Very Bad Faith Editing. Hypnosadist 21:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I see your point. I just don't agree about the long list too. -- Szvest 23:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm happy with the paragraph and some mention of the quran quotes he gives to anybody who will listen as a final compromise. It was a protest revert because of the bad faith.Hypnosadist 23:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Lee (to guess) didn't revert b/c he was alone. When two people are adding bullshit, it's hard to be by yourself. I do hope Lee reverts; I'll be reverting it again tomorrow because it's senseless, and if you think your argument will stand up anywhere we can take it, I suspect you're wrong. Marskell 23:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I am confused Hypno! You said I reverted back to this edit when DAde tried to reinstate the long list of quran quotes and now you say I'm happy with the paragraph and some mention of the quran quotes! -- Szvest 23:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Hypno added two tangential Qu'ran quotes. Dade provided a mass list. I (and Lee earlier) reverted all of them because they're all BS in context. Hypno wants to suggest that his list edit is the "consensus". Marskell 23:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Wrong the edit was lee's.Hypnosadist 23:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I looked at the history and I don't know what you mean. Granted, there have been twenty-odd reverts and "re-reverts" but I think I'm representing the situation properly. Marskell 00:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok i did not write it! In the talk section student newspapers arn't reliable sources this edit turns up and i finish the section with "If you can live the current edit (your one)of the Mohammed Reza Taheriazar section i can.Hypnosadist 21:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)". This edit held for two days then DAde started reverting to long version. Both me and lee reverted back to the "paragraph and two quotes" edit and DAde to the long one. He stopped. Then you turn up!
I have rm'ed the bit about the student. Totally over-specific and unneeded here. Marskell 13:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree. This topic is a general overview. Anyone who wants to know more about this particular person's thoughts can read the article about him. --Lee Hunter 13:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
You remove the whole section and Lee agrees and does not edit back to the agreed paragraph and two quotes, this i feel is bad faith editing on his part (not yours).Hypnosadist 00:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Since when am I obliged to revert the article to a version that suits you (and doesn't suit me)? The only reason there was a "consensus" is that you absolutely refused to allow those quotes to be removed, so I cut them down as much as I could. It's not like I actually agreed with your position. If another editor wants to remove the rest of them, they have my full support. If you want to revert, that's your business, not mine. --Lee Hunter 14:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
A compromise is a deal both sides don't like! Fine i'll just make sure never to assume good faith in your edits or what you say.Hypnosadist 14:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The Quran quotes are true and the opinion of Taherie is true.DAde 14:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you please refrain from POV pushing and respect other people concensus? Are you an expert in the field to suggest that The Quran quotes are true and the opinion of Taherie is true.? -- Szvest 22:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up ®

Revert warring on this section is getting silly and people are going to get banned. Can we have a discusion the reasons and policy for the edits. DAde with the small quote mention on this page the user can then link to Mohammed Reza Taheriazar's page for the full list of quran quotes that he believes makes it right to try and commit mass murder of innocent civilians. Marskell he is one of a few americans that have turned traitor and terrorist and as such is notable, especially as he expains his reasons in open source letters. He is one of the few terrorists i know that gives chapter and verse on his religious motivations to become a terrorist.Hypnosadist 14:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Hypno, three or four people have disagreed with your preferred. Dade´s edit is just a massive POV text dump--you´re suggesting your edit as a "middle ground" relative to his, which is gaming things. It´s explained at length above why the student does not belong. Marskell 19:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Its not my preferred edit! Thats the point! i could go back to reverting to the long list of quotes which is what i wanted in the first place, your arguement that he's not a good enough terrorist, only injuring people and spreading terror, is nothing compared to his detailed religous justifications for his actions and the actions of others. This is the point of this article, to show the links between the three words in the title. I'll keep going to the middle ground to see if the majority of editors will support it, its held before.Hypnosadist 19:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
A majority of editors clearly do not support it. Kirbytime reverted it once, Lee would prefer it not there, I don't see that Fayssal wants it (though he hasn't commented at length), and obviously I do not want it. To argue/repeat:
  • This isn't about "homegrown terrorists" and regardless this is not an encyclopedia expected to give extra coverage to American issues; the last point should be obvious, but some times it needs repeating.
  • The event in question and the person in question are exceptionally minor relative to other events and people covered under this topic. You asked "what is a general level article" and I answered "Editorial discretion means choosing things that rise to a certain level of prominence and will have staying power." Your edit fails on both counts. Marskell 07:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
This is not about "American issues" its about dealing with the lie that terrorism is created/justified by the bad life that the terrorist has in Gaza or the West Bank. This is about "Islamic extremist terrorism" and Taheriazar is prime example of the Meme of "Islamic extremist terrorism". He is infected with this philosphy, then he acts on it and now he freely tells everyone about it. He shows that "Islamic extremist terrorism" crosses national, social, economic and cultural boundries not thought possible by many people (and that is notable). I want to add more on this issue with the 7/7 bombers from Britain as two of them have released video threats/statements but until this is resolved i'm not going to bother as Lee has said he'll fight an excess of facts.Hypnosadist 16:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Your treating this like MySpace. We aren´t exposing any lies here and we shouldn´t be overloading this with current event cruft. If you´d like to get a request for mediation, do so; I will continue to revert. And you have not answered the fact that you are the only contributor who is insisting on this. Marskell 19:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Hypno writes "Lee has said he'll fight an excess of facts". I'm not sure that those were my exact words, but I confess that I do fight the insertion of irrelevant, redundant, off topic or just plain silly facts. For example, when I first happened upon this article the list of Islamic terrorist acts included the Barbary pirates (!!!). The job of the editor is to remove stuff that doesn't belong and it doesn't matter how "true" it is. Otherwise we'd end up with one large article containing the content of the other 1.5 million Wikipedia articles. --Lee Hunter 20:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Well i have to give you the Barbary pirates Lee, that is just mud slinging and should have been removed. "Otherwise we'd end up with one large article containing the content of the other 1.5 million Wikipedia articles." Yes thats why a two line name check for some one so you can go to their article and read about them there, but they do need the name check.Hypnosadist 23:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the above as a valid argument Hypno. We have a "see also" section if follow your comment above. The thing here is that Taheriazar is one of the hundreds of Islamist terrorists and all of them have a lot to say (less or more than Taheriazar has had). Now, why Taheriazar and not others? What makes his case different and more encyclopaedic than others? This would lead us to what Lee's just said above. -- Szvest 14:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up ®
There are thousands and thousands of people with views on terrorism and Islam. There is no reason and no need for us to mention them all. You have yet to establish why this one student is particularly noteable. It's as simple as that. I don't currently have an article on wikipedia. Perhaps one day I will. However I'm pretty sure my views on Islamic terrorism will never be in this article and I don't think I'd want them to either... Nil Einne 23:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Taheri is noteworthy because he justified his attacks with Quran quotes.DAde 15:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I see the edit war is still going on! Any chance of going to the compromise position.Hypnosadist 21:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Now this edit war has moved to Criticism of Islam can we talk about a compromise?Hypnosadist 19:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
This isn't an edit war, this is disruption. User:DAde is using sock IPs in efforts to avoid WP:3RR limits. If this continues he will likely face a community banning. (→Netscott) 20:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
If he is using sock puppets he should be banned. My position is still the same, i think a line mentioning him (so there is a link to his wikipage) is not too much to ask.Hypnosadist 20:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Osama Bin Laden and Sayyid Qutb quotes

The wikiquote page has some great quotes [41] we should see which ones need to be added. There is no page for Sayyid Qutb.Hypnosadist 18:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The 1998 fatwa by OBL et al. [42] Hypnosadist 19:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi going to add this quote by OBL from the very start of the above 1998 fatwa;

Praise be to God, who revealed the Book, controls the clouds, defeats factionalism, and says in His Book: "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)"; and peace be upon our Prophet, Muhammad Bin-'Abdallah, who said: I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but God is worshipped, God who put my livelihood under the shadow of my spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my orders.

And i think this should go in the Interpretations of the Qur'an section. As there is already one edit war ongoing i thought i'd put this on the talk page first to get the positioning and wording right for this.Hypnosadist 21:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US State Department list

Anyone else think the list should go? I see absolutely no reason for us to replicate it. If people want to know it, they can visit the website (although the link appears to have changed so someone should find a new one) which we can perhaps include in the external links. I considered just removing it but decided to ask here first given the high level of controversy. Nil Einne 22:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Book lists

While I personally agree with Lee that most of the books should be removed if we were to mantain them, we need to offer other books with counter points of view. I suspect finding some wouldn't be hard, the only question is which ones to add? 23:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


Like which ones? You can dig up the fatwahs issued by OBL and others I'm sure. Why not keep them on there. Again, unless you've read them, how can you decide if they are relavent or not?Culmo80 20:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)culmo80

Wrong. You want them included, you must explain why they are relevant. They look to me like the usual bunch of Islamophobic bs that's thrown into the mixer whenever someone wants to have a go at Muslims. Books on "dhimmitude" are, for instance, absolutely nothing to do with "terrorism", although I'm sure Bat Ye'or would have a thing or two to say about "terrorists" too, given the platform to do so. Grace Note 07:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I restored the further reading section for now until discussion is closed. -- Szvest Wiki me up ® 11:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Don't. It's the correct practice here to remove contested material until the dispute is resolved. Putting a list of Islamophobic books would maybe be okay in an article titled Books written to stir up hatred or whatever, but these are not works that seriously discuss the subject matter of this article. Grace Note 07:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic extremism should not forward to this article

This article is supposed to be about Islamic Extremist Terrorism, not just Islamic extremism. I would say that blowing up ancient Buddha statues, executing converts from Islam, cutting off thieves' hands, gang raping a woman for her brother's mistakes, killing women for dating outside the tribe, hanging teenage boys for being gay and cutting off little girls' clits all fall under Islamic extremism, however none of that is generally considered to be terrorism. Islamic extremism should either have an article of it's own or redirect to Islamism or Criticism of Islam. --BillyTFried 20:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

And many of those subjects you mention are only indirectly related to Islam. They are tribal practices or criminal activities carried out by people who call themselves Muslim. --Lee Hunter 14:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Is three many? Arrow740 09:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree. It's like calling the execution of criminals in the US "Christian judicial murder" just because the man who signs the warrant is a Christian. Grace Note 07:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
It is "like" it, but worse. Arrow740 09:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
No, I think it would be about equal. Grace Note 07:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That's irrelevant because the same thing can be said for terrorist attacks carried out by people who call themselves Muslim. All of the acts I mentioned are carried out in the name of Islam, just as the terrorist acts of this article are. --BillyTFried 17:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

How does one carry out things in the name of Islam? Can you explain how that is done? Grace Note 07:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
If you do someting, and claim you are doing them in the name of Islam, you are doing them in the name of Islam, assuming you are a muslim.--Sefringle 05:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
That probably makes too much sense. Arrow740 09:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
The Nazis invaded and terrorised several countries in Europe under the motto "Gott mit uns". Who's for including them in Christian extremist terrorism? Grace Note 07:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If you do something, claiming that certain verses of a religious text tell you to do it, then you are probably acting in the name of that religion, although you need not represent it. Enigma059 17:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, quite. Do you see how that doesn't make a particular act of violence "Islamic" or "Christian" though? What this article wants to discuss are acts of violence that some people call "terrorism" perpetrated by Muslims whose views are considered by some to be extreme. Both "some"s include Muslims, who will say, wearily, there is nothing "Islamic" about the acts. Grace Note 07:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

And I suppose now there was nothing Christian about the Crusades either then eh? Jeez. --BillyTFried 08:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

How Muslims feel about Islamic terrorism has been explained in the article, there is no need to express that viewpoint in the title. Whether or not the views of these people are extremist in nature, the fact remains that the activities they indulge in are widely regarded as terrorism, and that fact (some may say it is a POV) should be included in the title for the sake of accuracy. Enigma059 10:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/s/l/Talk%7EIslamic_extremist_terrorism_0719.html"