Talk:Jamaat-e-Islami

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Pakistan which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Pakistan and Pakistan-related topics. This article is related to Politics of Pakistan. For guidelines see WikiProject Pakistan and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

This article is part of a WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's articles related to the History of South Asia. For guidelines see WikiProject History of South Asia and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.

Given the importance of Jamaat-e-Islami to the Pakistani political scene, I feel that this page should be updated and increased in size. Hopefully we can get a section talking about the Jamaat's constitution(we can get it from the Jamaat website). Furthermore, Jamaat is a political party with its fair share of controversies. A criticism section would help make the page more balanced and neutral.

1 Warning
2 Jamaati opposition to Pakistan
3 Urdu Wikipedia or English?
4 Sri Lanka
5 Vandalism by Siddiqui
6 User:Siddiqui's edits
7 Protection
8 'discussion' moved from user talk pages to here.
9 reflecting wider opinion/reports
10 Unprotecting
11 Jamiat Islami of Burhanuddin Rabbani?
12 Mansura Jamaat
13 POV
14 The Creed of Theo-Fascism
15 Jamaat-e-Islami / Jamaat-i-Islami
16 Bangladesh and India

[edit] Warning

A Jamaati has waged its own brand of 'holy war' against the neutral policies of the WIKIPEDIA...with changing IDs the activist, rather say warier is changing the face of this and relating article…I have gathered information about the user and further investigations are going on…I warn the user and the group to refrain from damaging the articles and let information with it truest face come to the surface for the global community. They are active especially in the Islamic and topics on terrorism etc. You can observe their history and language in some main topics--for example:

I concur. Right now Siddiqui is trying to rewrite the history by removing the well known facts of the Jamaat Islami running militant anti-Ahmadiyya agitations. This has been widely documented in Pakistan and International press but its Jamaatis like Siddiqui who think by taking it out of here they can make everyone forget about these facts. Yahya

[edit] Jamaati opposition to Pakistan

"While persisting to his Anti-Pakistan Ideology Maududi writes in one of his books,"If we have ever uttered a single word in the favor of creation of Pakistan, it must be proved with references". That is why Jamat-e-Islami also did not support Muslim League,the only representative of Muslims of India, in core ellection of 1945-46."

Maudidi, was not supporting the formation of a Muslim state out of India. This was for the better cause of the Indians. History has shown that he was right. After the formation of Pakistan, there has always been tension between India and Pakistan. Also the condition of Muslims in India is in a woeful plight. And Pakistan has never been an Islamic state. More over some un-educated, ill cultured Muslims in Pakistan have tried to put Islam in a bad light. This is the net result of India and Pakistan seperated.

Had India been not devided the History of India would have been different. The division of India was only supported by Mohammed Ali Jinna's Muslime League (as he felt he couldn't go well with Nehru) and by the extreme right Hindu fundamendalists - the RSS (Rashtriya SwayamSevak Sangh) who killed Mahathma Ghandhi for not supporting a devided India.

That was added to the article by anon contributor 202.154.236.148 (talk · contribs). Can someone please verify/clarify? --AI 06:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Urdu Wikipedia or English?

"The Jamat is very active in the field of Dawah, Tarbiyah and Tanzeem almost in all the areas of Pakistan." This is the English wikipedia, correct? This sentence has no meaning to an English speaker. Mustaqbal 07:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sri Lanka

[1] mentions a JI branch in Sri Lanka. The question again pops up, is JI an international/regional organization or are the different groups independent bodies? --Soman 23:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Jama-at-e Islami* Pakistan, JI Hind, JI Banglades and JI Srilanka are different Islamic parties. Though they share same idiology they differ in policies, according to the situations of respective countries. They are not branches of a sigle international organization.
islamism* 61.2.201.102 09:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)Alikoya KK61.2.201.102 09:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism by Siddiqui

I have removed several unhelpful addition by Yahya01.

Siddiqui 01:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I am sure a Jamaati will find them "unhelpful" as they show the real face of Jaamat as it is. If you find these acts so shameful, perhaps Jammat should not have done them in the first place. Yahya 02:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Calling people names is not going to help you in any way. This incident has been recorded next time you be reported to Wkikipedia.

Siddiqui 15:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Jamaat-e-Islami’s whole history of terrorism is recorded in Pakistani & International press. Do not try to remove these proven facts. You have been warned. Yahya

This Wikipedia and not your personal website. Please follow Wikipedia rules.

Siddiqui 23:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think blanking out valid information is part of wiki rules. Who are you trying to kid? Yahya

[edit] User:Siddiqui's edits

Please refrain blanking valid content provided by other editors. If you feel some text is inappropriate, please discuss it here, so we can aim for a consensus. Veej 01:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Siddiqui's comments moved here. Veej 02:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC) :

I am deleted the Yaya01's addditions on that page. Please check the history of that page. I have never seen your contribution or participitation in that page. Please back up your allegations of vandalism. I am reverting your changes until you proved the proof. Siddiqui 01:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

rather than becoming involved in an edit war, perhaps we can discuss this. One of the sections that you removed is; "Jamaat publishes hardline demands of the Pakistan Government". This section is quoted directly from Jamaat's website & referenced. It provides a much needed insight into the agenda of Jamaat. 1) What is your objection to this? Veej 02:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

2) You also removed this link, Asian Tribune - Militancy in Pakistan. The Asian Tribune is a quality newspaper published by World Institute for Asian Studies. The article was by Mohammed Yousuf, a notable analyst & Lawyer. He has written extensively on current affairs, with reference to South and Central Asia. The article is intelligently written, insightful & relevent. What is your objection to this? Veej 02:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

I have protected the article until this edit war can be resolved. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'discussion' moved from user talk pages to here.

Jamaat-e-Islami now BLOCKED because of EDIT WAR

I have posted comment / questions at Talk:Jamaat-e-Islami#User:Siddiqui.27s_edits for you. Are you interested in a discussion? Veej 04:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussion ?

I think a stronger quote is worthwhile as to their peaceful advocacy from their web site, perhaps: "When people become frustrated, then, without thinking, they also say that the only remedy for this country is ‘a bloody revolution’. This is a dangerous mood. We must make the people realise, that, that would be inviting a new catastrophe..." Which precedes the quote currently footnoted as number two on the page. Blair71 11:29, 15 August 2007

What do you want to discuss ? Should we discuss Jamaat Islami page ? Should we discuss your daily addition to anti-Muslim propaganda in Wikipedia ? Or should we discuss 2002 Gujarat violence ? Siddiqui 04:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you're refering to. I don't see what riots in gujarat have to do with me. I live in London. I am critical of some Islamic/Islamist institutions. I'm sorry if this offends you but I don't want to get involved in personal attacks. Please can we focus on the issues on the Jamaat talk page? Veej 05:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not a personal attack. I asked basically to know your motives. Are you motivated by hate or love. Are you interested in peace and justice or just propaganda. That is the basis of my question. If you are motivated by hate of Muslims then we don't have anything to discuss since you have already made up your mind. If you are motivated by peace and justice then you should also add links about violence in Gujarat at all Wikipedia related pages. Do you understand my reasoning. Siddiqui 05:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I am neither motivated by hate nor love. However, I am interested intellectual criticism of individuals, organisations & concepts. I spend a lot of time searching the net looking for intellectual criticisms. We're drifting off the point. I'm not asking for personal information about you & I'm disappointed that you'd ask me. Please can we focus on the issues on the Jamaat talk page? Veej 05:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

If you are ... interested intellectual critism of individuals, organisations & concepts. then may be you can also take some time and have some "intellectual" criticism of "individuals, organisations & concepts" involved in 2002 Gujarat violence. I just want you to judge your own motives. Clearly you are only motivated by anti-Muslim propaganda. Siddiqui 05:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is becoming frustrating. Why do you keep bringing the Gujarat riots into this? It has nothing to do with me. I was thousands of miles away when it occured. I don't know anyone involved in it. I hope you're not insinuating I had any involvement in this violence. Also, however you may want me to judge myself is irrelevent. Please can we focus on the issues on the Jamaat talk page? Veej 05:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You said: I am interested intellectual critism of individuals, organisations & concepts. So my question is why Jamaat Islami fits this mold but not 2002 Gujarat violence ? Why are you so much interested in Jamaat Islami ? Your Page says that you like Gujarati food that is why I brought up the issue of 2002 Gujarat violence. But you are avoiding the issue. I am ready and willing to discuss all issue with you including Jamaat Islami. But may be you explain you real motives then we can proceed. Siddiqui 05:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems you want me to jump through some hoops for you, before you're willing to discuss the issues on the Jamaat talk page. What exactly should I say for you? Veej 05:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Why are you interested in Jamaat Islami? Why are you not interested in discussing 2002 Gujarat violence? Siddiqui 05:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm interested in Jamaat merely because I stumbled across some interesting articles refering to it whilst researching another article. You may decide that I'm motivated by some evil agenda. That's your choice, but I'm not interested in your theories. I know nothing about the Gujarat riots. For the last time, please can we focus on the issues on the Jamaat talk page? Veej 05:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You said I spend a lot of time searching the net looking for intellectual critisms. Why do you think that genocide in your Gujarat state does not interest you ? Is that not intellectual ? Why is Jamaat Islami seems very intellectual for your taste ? Your motives are clearly spreading anti-Mulim propaganda. May be you should read each line of 2002 Gujarat violence before you discuss Jamaat Islami with me. Siddiqui 05:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC) You said I know nothing about the Gujarat riots Why is that ? Is Jamaat Islami a sexy babe compared to ugly Gujarat genocide ? This subject is not intellectual for you ? Siddiqui 05:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You’ve reached the end of my patience. I’ve answered your unwarranted personal questions about me, yet you’ve not answered a single one of my legitimate questions regarding your censorship of the Jamaat-e-Islami article. I won’t be subject to your bullying interrogation any further. If you decide you want to be part of focussed discussion regarding Jamaat, then you know how to contact me. Veej 06:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, your motives are even clear to yourself. You have never contributed Jamaat Islami page before yesterday and now just want eager to add some propaganda. But you say that you are not interested in genocide in your own state ! You don't know anything about it or care to tell me your thoughts on this subject. Siddiqui 06:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reflecting wider opinion/reports

This organisation as been criticized in mainstream western media such as the BBC. The current version of the article is misleading as it sings the praises of Jamaat without mentioning any of these criticisms. To say Jamaat-e-Islami, Hind does not engage in active politics, but keeps its activities to philanthropy is an appalling misrepresentation of the truth. A fully referenced, fair overall account of Jamaat from a NPOV is desperately needed. Veej 17:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

If such things are true, then they should definitely be put on this page. Please provide an appropriate link, and we can contsruct a pag called "Criticism of Jamaat-e-Islami".

Also, why is this page protected? There are a couple of English errors in the history section. Bless sins 00:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

It's protected because there was an edit war here. Veej 01:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

These were the links deleted from the page; Asian Tribune - Militancy in Pakistan globalsecurity.org - Jamaat-e-Islami Jamaat-e-Islami takes on Hizb Pak police registers case of sedition against Jamaat-e-Islami leader Pak Jamaat-e-Islami chief released by NWFP govt, but rearrested by Punjab govt Jamaat-e-Islami's Danish Friends Kashmir: Pakistan Explores a Political End-Game Al Qaeda-Pakistani ties deepen Ahmadya Muslim Community: Victims of Fundamentalist JAMAAT-E-ISLAMI, HIZBUL MUJAHIDEEN & AL QAEDA Dancing In The Mine Field Veej 03:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

This is the article that initially prompted my concern Veej 02:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

IF there is an edit war, pls. declare the issue, and hopefully me and others can clear it up.

Secondly, I looked over your links (though not all of them). They definitely suggest that Jamaat-e-Islami is quite a political organisation, having a very 'Anti-American' sentiment. It also has a poltical objective of establishing an Islamic State.

However, what I failed to see is, how is Jamaat-e-Islami a terrorist or militant organisation?

Perhaps, if you could provide to a couple of very credible links (like BBC), that would be good. Bless sins 03:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

To be honest I haven’t asserted that Jamaat is a terrorist organization. Though from the reactions above, I can see why you may have thought I had! Actually, I neither believe nor disbelieve any association. I wouldn’t dream of adding any controversial info or allegations without rock solid sources. I’ve only added 2 pieces of information here. Then the edit war started.

I added this link into External Links; http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/pakistan/ji.htm

The page it links to contains no controversial information at all. Though GlobalSecurity.org is a tiny specialist organisation compared to the BBC, it has won plaudits of the mainstream media:

"The website that puts you in the commander-in-chief's chair." (The Times - London)
"If conflict does erupt in the Gulf every private would be well-advised to take that proverbial Field Marshall's baton out of their packs and substitute it with a laptop with access to John Pike's superb site!" (Jonathan Macus, Defence Correspondent, BBC)
"With all the speculation about American intentions for Iraq, there has been one place where, to the chagrin of the administration, people can find a few hard facts." (The New York Times September 22, 2002)
" ... online resources such as GlobalSecurity.org's "Target: Iraq" are the closest thing we may have to thoughtful analysis of the matter. Includes pros and cons of attack, the likeliest battle scenarios, weaponry at our disposal, and more." (USA Today)
"A lot of us have turned into news junkies by what happened on September 11, and since that time.... One that I particularly liked is GlobalSecurity.org." (CNN's Joie Chen)
"There's no need to bother with TV's know-it-all talking heads and obnoxious ads when you can download the same videos and images from Pike's site.." (Forbes Best of the Web)
"The respected defense consultant GlobalSecurity.org serves up an online compendium of info about the war on terrorism." (USA Today)[2]

I added this info from Jamaat’s own website (the title was mine though);

Jamaat publishes hardline demands of the Pakistan Government

Delaying tactics should not be used in the implementation of Islamic Sharia, and it should be specified as ‘The Supreme Law’ of the country, in the Constitution. The nation should be delivered of the curse of Interest from the economy. Immediate action should be taken, to end the Interest system, according to the recommendations of the Council of Islamic Ideology, the Federal Sharia Court, and follow the report of the Economic Commission, which was established by the government itself. *The government should avoid taking actions which are contrary to the dignity and freedom of the country; as, by handing over of Aimal Kansi to the American commandos, in violation of the country’s law, the government provided a cause of national disgrace.
All the looted wealth of the nation should be recovered, by carrying out judicious accountability of previous rulers and newly elected Members of the Assembly. Very large amounts, deposited in the foreign banks, should be recovered through effective arrangements, and the process of accountability should be meaningfully applied without any discrimination, to everyone.
The nation should not be deprived of its right to protect itself against any nuclear blackmail, through the NPT or CTBT, or under the pressure of some global power.
Radio and TV should be stopped from spreading obscenity and vulgarity.
Friday should again be declared the weekly holiday, instead of Sunday.
Regarding the Golden Jubilee, instead of organising events and shows contrary to Islamic values, the people of the country should be made aware of the ideology of Pakistan so that they are able to pass their lives according to the teachings of the Quran and Sunnah. [3]

The text above gives an insight into what Jamaat are about. I’m not trying to make wild allegations about them. I just want to slowly work through the sources adding bits of relevant information to create a fair & honest portrayal of the organization. Sorry about the number of links earlier. I got carried away. Regarding the edit war, the admin that blocked the page suggested I go here, but not a lot seems to be happening with it.Veej 05:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

There are disturbing reports of belligerence from Jamaat-e-Islami though;

Protesters expressed their support for the insurgency in Indian-administered Kashmir and called for the free movement of Kashmiri people across the line. The Jamaat-e-Islami leader, Qazi Hussain Ahmed, said Pakistan-administered Kashmir was the base-camp for the jihad or holy war in Indian-administered Kashmir. He said no one in Pakistan had the right to create obstacles in its way. The Jamaat leader accused President Musharraf of giving in to the pressure from the United States and Britain, which he described as nothing short of betrayal. Mr Ahmed said the people of Pakistan were not afraid of another war with India and asked President Musharraf to take a firmer stand in support of the struggle of the Kashmir's Muslims. BBC

They’re hardly aiming for peaceful resolution are they? This seems fairly militant to me. Veej 05:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's start looking into the Jamaat webstie and try to form a section on "JI's 'COnstitution'", or what JI claims to be about. Also, let's start working on a section called "criticism", where we present the views opposing to JI. Bless sins 11:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Certainly. They seem like good sensible ideas. Veej 15:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotecting

The administrator who protected this article cited an edit war between two people. I think a more productive action would have been to tell the two editors to behave themselves. I do so now in unprotecting. Be good. --Tony Sidaway 16:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll certainly try Tony! In fairness to RoyBoy, he has been ill & explained that he would normally get more involved. He also recomended a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance). thanks for lifting the protection though. Veej 20:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jamiat Islami of Burhanuddin Rabbani?

Is that group related or the same as this one, or do they merely have the same name? Шизомби 13:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a different name, Jamiat-i-Islami, and it's incorrectly redirecting to Jamaat-e-Islami, I created a new page for the Afghan Jamiat-e-Islami. Waqas.usman 09:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mansura Jamaat

I just came across that article. The article says almost nothing. Would someone here be able to expand upon it or merge it into this article. Or should it just be deleted? --JGGardiner 04:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Seconded - there is nothing in this article that gives me any understanding of the subject Tom

[edit] POV

This article seems to be heavily influenced by anti-Jamaat rhetoric and POV. For sure Jamaat has something to say to all of these allegations and they need to be heard rather than being dismissed. Just calling someone Jamaati shouldn't be enough to dismiss their arguments. Wikipedia should not be a playground for those who can bully others with name-calling. It almost seems as those accusing others of "extremism" and "closed-mindedness" are unable to accept expression of other views. In addition, this article is badly written, terribly formatted, and uneloquently presented. -- Aslamt 07:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Now that there's been numerous edits since this was posted, would it be ok to remove the POV tag? If not, please clarify which areas of the article need attention. Thanks, --Oscarthecat 19:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

While it is true that many changes have been made, I still feel that the article is biased. Let me point out some of the things that I have noticed:

Their rhetoric instil "the spirit of jihad and martyrdom" among their adherents and portray India and Russia as the enemy of Pakistan. This has been taken from a blog that cites it from another source that doesn't look too reliable.

They stand accused by International organizations of participating in terrorist acts and of propagating Islamic Fundamentalism in Pakistan. This has not been substantiated by any source. Moreover, the term Islamic fundamentalism is misleading and doesn't really mean anything. It is a weasel word coined by the media to raise emotion and incriminate groups of people.

During the military dictatorship of Yahya Khan, the JI started to collaborate with the military junta. Their student wings turned into violent militant bodies and forcibly suppressed the rise of leftist movements on university campuses. They also tacitly supported the 1971 Bangladesh atrocities, opining that Pakistan's failure to maintain their occupation of Bangladesh was the result of "failure to apply Islamic principles in governance". This is OR and no source has been cited for this, reliable or otherwise. Also, it betrays the evident bias of the author of this piece, presenting only one side of the argument.

Confident of state support, the Jamaat contested the 1970 elections, only to suffer big reversals.It was clear that many people in Pakistan did not support Islamic Fundamentalism at the time. In 1973, Maududi started his violent hate campaign against Ahmadiyyas and Qadiani minorities, denouncing them as heretics in his book , Qadiani problem. Again, most of this is OR and represents the author's own POV. "Confident of state support"? and "It was clear that many people in Pakistan did not support Islamic Fundamentalism at the time"? How can they establish these things? This is OR. And "Maududi started his violent hate campaign", this is violent POV: misrepresenting facts without giving the other party a chance to present their case.

I can continue to quote from the same section as above (History) and would not run out of examples. If you read it, it is quite clear that this is similar to what a page for the Republican Party written by a Democrat would look like.

Public declarations. This is utterly stupid and does not do anything but take a given resolution of no immediate consequence out of context and placing it in the middle of a page about a political organization.

Then of course, without any context, someone felt it was necessary to restate that the party first opposed the creation of Pakistan because they think it is a selling point against the JI.

Student Wing. It is evidently clear that this section is nothing but OR.

Terrorist links is also evidently biased and selectively presents information to increase emotional appeal against the JI.

The whole article is full of it. I don't know where to begin and where to end. This article is completely un-encyclopedic and needs to either be cleaned up by someone who can balance things out, or otherwise just thrown away. Like I said, in its current form, it selectively presents information to incriminate a political party that otherwise has a well-established history of rational behavior and argumentation, and must therefore have something to say in their defense. It is unequivocally OR and presentation of a certain POV. --Aslamt 12:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to try to work on this to make it better. My goal is to have everything I put in sourced. Be advised that while my goal is NPOV, I will not shy away from placing any "pro" or "con" statements about JI if they are properly sourced and placed in context. Fanra 01:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense. --Aslamt 22:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Creed of Theo-Fascism

This source is used in the (currently) fourth paragraph of the article. It seems to be a blog. In addition, it seems to say nothing about terrorism and the quote, "The statements of the Jamaat-e-Islami chief in Pakistan instil in them the spirit of jihad and martyrdom because they are told that India (and also Russia and the US) is an enemy." is made without any other background, i.e. they don't quote the alleged statements or even name the "chief". Generally, I would like to remove the entire paragraph but to avoid an edit war, I would like anyone who supports it to please give us some more background on it. Thanks. Fanra 02:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jamaat-e-Islami / Jamaat-i-Islami

Is Jamaat-e-Islami and Jamaat-i-Islami the same? I'm assuming they are exactly the same thing, with the difference in spelling merely due to the problem of translating it from Arabic to English. Fanra 02:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You are quite right there, it is just an issue of transliteration. I would assume the spelling as provided on their official website (Jamaat-e-Islami) would be the most appropriate. --Aslamt 22:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bangladesh and India

JeI is was part of the ruling coalition in Bangladesh for five years, and it's beginnings were in India. Shouldn't Bangladesh and India have more space on the article about this party spread over quite a few countries? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 06:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)