Talk:Global Islamic insurgency theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 27 May 2007. The result of the discussion was No consensus. |
I cleared up this page a little by fixing the links and categorising it, but the issues raised in the previous AfD remain - it still looks totally POV, and contains many unsourced controversial claims. I wouldn't be surprised to see it nominated for AfD again shortly if it doesn't get drastically improved. Terraxos 22:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- I started tagging some of the POV statements and stuff in need of citation, but I really think this article is beyond saving and should be deleted. I mean, statements like "Islam exploits the tolerance of Western society through immigration, and attempts to use the legal system to carve out special status for Muslims within Western states" are totally ridiculously POV and made without any citations. Most of this article is just a rant, it belongs on a right-wing blog, not Wikipedia. 86.157.4.96 19:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Article
I was the one whom originally wrote this article in its first incarnations. I watched it get nominated for deletion, and then have the pending deletion removed ... I have not added to it for a while. My intentions were to see if anyone else would build on it. So I left it and would come back every now and then to see what changes had been made ...
This is the first time back in a while, and I have to say its been mauled. I am not particulary impressed with most of the edits, and out of curiosity I cut the entire article and pasted it in Word to run a spell check ...
That was an interesting experience.
Needless to say, I am going to be re writing the article - It may take a while though.
Important things to note is that this article (however disorganised it is now) should NOT be merged with "War on Terror", "War on Islam" type articles ... It is entirely different, and that is what people don't realise with the Global Islamic Insurgency.--121.45.60.231 09:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Counter Article
If you were using an American spell check that's probably not surprising: Our spelling system is different to yours and our dictionaries are probably a lot fatter too! I saw your comments and ran the article through my spell checker earlier and other for one or two minor errors due to clumbsy cutting it seemed fine. Moreover someone else has been eliminating links and thereby creating a number of spelling errors in the process, was this you?
I must confess I am at a loss as to why your being so narrow minded in this pig-headed way; nearly all of my work is self admittedly speculation based on the clearly described sources attached and does not pretend to be anything else. The reason for this is of course because you simply cannot class such a broad and generaly faceless movement such as this in the way that I think that you have done.
Some of your titles I think are very questionable: Modus Operandi? Do you really think that such a plural concept can be piffled down to a single set of operational proceedures? Do you think that you can afford to be that specific given what you really seem to know about the subject? If your referring to the views of particular individuals then please by all means at least tell us so.
OK I might have had to perform a few literary somersaults in order to stop this article from being deleted. But even then I think that its a bit rich for you to write everything I have done off, since by the time you last left it it had already been registered as disputed with the same sign that's there now.
For example in your Premise section you say that to refer to the insurgency as "monolithic" would only serve the insurgencies ends. Im sorry to have to tell you, but this is what's known as a; 'Subjective Opinion'. Which means that its just what you think - in other words its just expressing your own opinion. And the bit where you say that the insurgency ultimately seeks supremacy over the entire world: Although I would have to agree with you! That too is a; 'Subjective Opinion'. In fact I put it to you that all of what you have done is essentialy all subjective opinion interspersed with just two very patchy references, to one freelance defence analyst in Australia and one American right wing pundit. Furthermore the first sentence in your Premise section actually makes no grammatical sense.
If you actually care to read what I have done I think that you will find that most if not almost all is transcribed from what is called an; 'Objective Point of View'. Which means that it is impartial because it describes opinions rather than states them as you have done.
For example:
"Global Islamic Insurgency ALTHOUGH NOT AN ACTUAL ORGANIZATION is nevertheless a term used to describe the PERCEPTION of a general ideological movement": Objective.
"It is SOMETIMES DIFFICULT to define exactly what goals the PERCEIVED movement of Global Islamic Insurgency are the most common within the movements own general consensus": Objective.
"It has been WIDELY SPECULATED that the PERCIEVED movement of Global Islamic Insurgency has the ultimate intention to eventually conquer and dominate the entire world": Objective.
Is that simple enough for you to understand or do you need more help?
Oh, by the way if your going to cite other people in your references what about some, eh uhm... Quotes?
What I find 'interesting' is that 'mauled' does not constitute what I would consider to be a very detailed explanation. I wonder why?
'Needless to say' that for better or for worse, I won't be returning to this article or this 'encyclopedia' again: Its all turned a bit too political for my tastes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.16.98 (talk) 21:44, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
[edit] !
whoever wrote this is totally and utterally against islam, some of the "aims" the writer has stated are just pure lies, and he has done this to give islam a bad image, angering many islamic readers such as me. I have changed them because they are not true!
Actually two people are responsible for this article: I am responsible for; Nature of the GII, What does GII want and How will GII get it. I would have written my own article only I discovered wikipedia only two months ago and don't fully know how to use it yet: You said that I'm completely against Islam, yet I have not even used the word Islam (except to say "THEIR proscription of Islam") or the word Mohammed once in my editings. Instead I refer to the phenomena as either Islamism or Global Islamic Insurgency, which are completely different things. They are extreme political manifestations derrived from a literature of religious mythology, not well rooted cultural constructs that are deeply based in an historic process of social evolution, which is how I perceive moderate Islam as being. It is within this context that I refered to the concept of the Caliphate and do not object in principle to a Caliphate under enlightened Muslim control. Moreover I think I've made it perfectly clear that I am refering to a signifficant minority (I hope), made up of Islamist Imperialists, such as those who are members of Al Qaeda and fully understand that although groups like Hammas and Hezbolla, are increasingly perceived as aligning with Al Qaeda doctrine at their grass roots. (As a reaction to the technicaly unfair Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza strip). They are still essentially groups with nationalist agenda's which nourish religiosity as matter of cultural pride and patriotic mobilisation, rather than political zeal and avaris. The reason I did not say this in my editings is because the article is not purely about that local conflict and is not a forum for apologing for Israel. Finally I am not an Islamophobe I am an Atheist and am also against other forms of organised religious madness, such as Christian cults like scientology. You are obviously another one of those hyper-reactionary, ultra sensitive, Correctofascist meglomaniacs which can't go through life without a massive chip on their shoulder to beat people over the head with, so that they can achieve intellectual gratification without having to work for it. I chose this article because of remarks made by bigots like Amjem Choudry and Abu Hamza. If you don't like my perception of Islam I suggest that you go and put you're own house in order!
Hi, I am reponsible for the re-nomination of this article for deletion. The idea of a GII may have some theoretical basis, but please cite more sources, or consider merging this article with something else that concerns the current conflict, perhaps War on Terrorism. Take a look at the presentation of related articles such as War on Islam and Caliphate.
Although I hate to say it, you cannot attribute ideologies to groups without citations, even if they are groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, or Al-Qaeda. I am referring to sections in particular such as "what Does the Global Islamic Insurgency Want?". Please cite the particular the debate at Trinity Dublin College, with perhaps a transcript of the event, or a news article citing the Aims listed above.
Also, think about changing some of the language used in the article to reflect the fact that some views are supported by a minority of the experts, on both ends, both in "Islamic circles" and "western" circles.
Adding a section such as "Criticism" is required as well. Note that almost every article on Wikipedia concerning remotely controversial topics has such a section. Take a look at the "Reestablishment" section of the Caliphate article for good references or ideas relating this this topic.
Imagine a kid in grammar school opened an encyclopedia for a project on a related topic and found this article. You would want them to have a complete, unbiased, factually correct picture of the situation.
Maybe I was a little too direct in representing - what I would have thought were, - already broadly known facts, so I have amended my previous editings by adding signifficant and extensive of quotations and have changed the language, so that it is more third person and balanced. I take your point about a criticism section, but I think that that would be probably best left to someone else. I have to say though that if your just going to delete it regardless I think that that would be an great encylopedic mistake and I can see no other reason why you would want to delete it under such conditions, other than for its controversial nature. In fact it has come to my attention that you have deleted at least one other article before, apparently on a book called 'Jewish Supremacism' and which was perceived by some in Jewish communities as being an anti-semetic piece of literature. Not that I am an anti-semite, but then again you don't just erase an article about Adolf Hitler simply because he did a lot of bad things. Therefore I would strongly urge you to keep this article open; as a developing article, so that other people are able to come in and tidy it up a bit further.
Thanks.
Whe new changes u have made are still lies! what u have said in the "steps" is basically what the many non-muslims think of Islam, but they are mistaken. For one, muslim woman are treated equal, thy are just told to wear hijab,, as that is a must in Islam, and if youur a muslim you follow the teachings and wayus of Islam.I suggest you first actually try to learn what Islam is and what it teaches, then right an article that is unbiased.
I am only going to say this one more time: None of what I have typed is in anyway ment to illustrate Islam. In fact I have gone to numerous and painstaking efforts to make it transparently clear, - even to the most stupid and wishfuly blind of people, - that this article has no intention of portraying any form of apolitical Islam, or even any form of rational political Islam. - To the extent that I have gone out of my way to put the word Islam between inverted comma's whenever associating Islam with the insane extremists, who use it to justify their absurd philosophies, like so: 'Islam'. If you care to look at the title of this article you will discover that it is entitled 'Global Islamic Insurgency', not Islam. Furthermore I also know that when it comes to many religious books such as the Koran (which I have read), that these mythic texts were written a considerably long time ago, often in ages when the current standards of political as well as civic morality would have made the likes of Hitler, Moa and Stalin, look normal if not excessively moderate. - (Hitler, Moa and Stalin were of course different, in that they had state level access to 20th century technology, mass production and Science). I am also perfectly aware of what the Koran has to say on many issues (including women), together with the shear scale of the many different intercontradictory interpretations that scholars by the million have managed to produce over the past 1400 years, ranging from the ultra-pacifist on one hand to the warmongering nihlist on the other. Whatsmore it seems perfectly obvious to me that the Koran is not the word of God, since many of its passages, particularly those concerning both its criminal and civil codes were probably directly copied from contemporary texts such as legislation passed in the Roman Empire under Emperor Constantine I, concerning laws that discriminated Christians from non-Christians. Also there are other literary discrepancies that are considered by many archival experts, to constitute vast tracts of the Koran that seem to have been deliberately emulated and copied (sometimes word for word in places), from various laws and penal codes passed by different Roman and Byzantine Christian Emperor's such the Emperor's Jovian 363-364 AD, Theodosius I 378-395 AD and Justinian I 527-565 AD. As for the "Steps" that you seemed so particularly offended by, like almost all of what has been transcribed in this article, these steps are meant to articulate a hypothetical scenario only and represent what many believe, (including the terrorists themselves), is the most proficient chain of events, in order to realise the long term ideological objectives of groups such as Al Qaeda. And as for being "unbiased" if you would care to examine the article more closely, you will find that most if not all of its assertions are communicated from a third person point of view and whatsmore there are literally dozens of links a reader can use in order to balance the THEME of the article with further background information. Lastly if you think that I am going to give religion and religion related topics a wide birth simply because it might offend someone with invested delusions, I think you might find that you are considerably mistaken! I am not an Atheist by design and I don't particularly like knowing that there is probably nothing in the hereafter and wish there was (that is to say rewarding). In fact I often hate being an Atheist and am sure that were I, (within moderation) religious, I would in many ways be a far better person than I am now, but at least I can find the moral courage, grit and determination to put up with it. The reason why I am an Atheist is because I am an Atheist by default, as there is just NO EVIDENCE that such supernatural beliefs are in anyway supported by any objective reasoning in light of the best 21st century Science currently available to me.
Although I can see that we look at things through very different prism's, thankyou anyway for the input.
[edit] Some suggestions
I have to admit, reading this article did make me think of the delete camp ;)
The article only really needs three things to make it a solid article: - I think it could do with a much shorter comparison with Soviet Russia and revolutionary socialism. - Encyclopedic language. The section on socialism especially really does read like someones pet theory being explained over a beer - More sources!
And look, if this really were a legitimate goal of the various revolutionary religious factions, then surely they themselves would've written a lot about it! I mean, seriously, you can pass on the peer reviewed journals if the subjects of the article have already spoken at length on what they want. I can't imagine the likes of Osama (or any of his contemporaries) being shy about a global Islamic order. I can just imagine it now, Osama on TV going "Well, shucks, yeah. We kinda do, y'know... *scuffs his feet* wanna take over the world and impose a Sharia theocracy... 'n' stuff..."
Jason 14:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
