Talk:Religious terrorism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects. If you would like to participate, you can improve the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's 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.)

Contents

[edit] Issues

Why under the Jewish section does it say "see also Zionist political violence", and under Islam it says "Main article: Islamic extremist terrorism"? Are we not calling a spade a spade?

I find this recently added statement to the Jewish section to contain POV: "Most, if not all, however, support the transfer of Palestinians to other regions within the Middle East, rather than their murder (as opposed to groups like Hamas which want to kill Jews wherever they are found)". Especially the end of it referring to Hamas. It seems to me the statement isn't a fact but an opinion, or at least a generalisation.

I've been lurking on Wikipedia for a while but I'm relatively new to editing articles. If I've misunderstood the concept of NPOV please correct me. Otherwise, I'd like to know what other's opinions are on the quote.--Tye 05:38, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

It's a fair point. (FWIW, I added that sentence). My goal was to contrast the anti-Democratic "terrorism" of those who advocate what's euphamistically called transfer (aka: kick out the Arabs) to the violent "terrorism" of those advocate pushing the Jews into the sea (aka: murder). Without digressing into another "is it terrorism" debate, I think we can all agree on two things: Transfer is an attack on an individuals civil rights as understood in most of the western world, but it's not the same as murder. An analogy to White Supremecists (sp?) groups suggests itself, although most of the listed Jewish groups are mostly bark and not bite. PS - welcome to Wikipedia, Tye! --Mikeage 09:16, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On another note -- there's a serious problem with the introduction paragraph and the listings. The introduction defines Religious Terrorism as the use of violence to further a (presumed) divine commandment, but many of the groups listed have religion as a common basis, but no divine commandment per se. E.g., the Klan, many of the Irish groups (most? I don't know enough to say), Jewish groups which today support transfer, and used violence for political, not religious goals in the 40s. Thoughts? --Mikeage 04:19, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The IRA are completely secular - not sure why they're listed here...

[edit] Shiv Sena & VHP terrorists???

This has made my jaw drop. Shiv Sena is a political party in Maharashtra. One of their members incited a riot in response to killing of Hindus by Muslims on account of Babri masjid demolitions but c'mon by that description Congress (India's ruiling party) is also guilty of inciting anti Sikh riots, they dont fall into definition of terrorists do they? Shiv Sena & VHP can be called vandals at the most. Let us see

Do their members blow themselves up in public? \ NO

Do they intend to challenge Indian Union? NO

Have they ever carried out attacks in Pakistan? NO

Do they fight any freedom movement? NO

Except a stary incident in 1992 SS & VHP have been peaceful. Just because Pakistan designates them to be terrorists, they DONT become terrorist. For god's sake this is Wikipedia not a Pakistani government website.

Shiv Sena has been removed. Unfortunately wikipedia sometimes has inaccurate info - please feel free to remove it next time. AndrewRT 00:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This might be a silly question..

..but who decided what order to put these in, right now it goes Islamic, Jewish, Christian, Other... seems like either an oddly arbitrary order, anti-alphabetical, or a nice way of saying, hey, we can't put Christians first on list of bad people! Which seems kind of POV--64.12.116.136 22:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recent changes

Hi AE, could you say something about the various changes you've made? For example, Hezbollah does seek the destruction of Israel and the establishment of an Islamic state, as does the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. Asbat Al-Ansar wants an Islamic state, and ditto for Mujaheddin e Khalq. Some of your other edits don't seem quite right either. Could you say what your reasoning is for them? Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

In addition, Hezbollah has been designated a terrorist group by a number of countres, "liberating" Kashmir is highly POV, etc. Jayjg (talk) 23:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


Here are my edits explained plain and simple:
1. Wanting to create a religious state is not terrorism.
True. But they don't just want to create a religious state. They kill people in order to achieve it. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but that is not indicated for many of the organizations I removed. It just says their name (without articles) and that they want to establish Islamic state. Some are groups that are unheard of. If they kill people because of that then they are terrorist (I have no problem with that) , but if they just want to create an Islamic state it is POV to say that they are terrorist. a-n-o-n-y-m 22:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
2. Many of these organizations are also political (e.g. the PKK).
They're all political. They're killing people for political ends, motivated by their religious beliefs. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
No, SV, you mistook what I said. I meant organizations like the PKK are fighting for seperatism or other political action. Non religious reasons. For example, the PKK wants separation from Turkey. a-n-o-n-y-m 22:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
3. Even if someone is Muslim and they use terrorism, it does not make it religious terrorism. For example, certain organizations in Kashmir are seeking what they call liberation of Kashmir. That has a separatist/rebel reason, not necessarily religious. a-n-o-n-y-m 22:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, that's a fair point, though I don't know enough about that situation to say whether others would call it religious terrorism. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Also, I never removed Hezbollah from the list and I will change the "liberating" thing.
By the way, Jayjg, I did not see the talk page of this article. You have no authority to immediately revert my edits, especially after only one day. The least you could do is inform me before acting so arbitrary. Thanks, a-n-o-n-y-m 19:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Anonymous Editor, I asked for clarification in Talk: and then waited a whole day before reverting, which is quite restrained. You, on the other hand, reverted within minutes. Since you claim that I have no authority to immediately revert your edits, especially after only one day, you should apply the same rule to yourself. Regarding your other statements, the change of Hezbollah description is both POV and inaccurate, and any Islamist group that uses terrorist methods is a religious terrorist group, regardless of whether or not they have political goals. In fact, almost all of these groups have political goals. Please fix these issues by returning the original text. Jayjg (talk) 20:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
Then make the description NPOV if you want, just don't revert my edit without warning me. That's the only reason I reverted back your edit. About political goals, see what I wrote above. I don't deny certain groups aren't terrorist, I just think some groups are not there for religious reasons. Also, you removed a few Jewish terrorist organizations, why? a-n-o-n-y-m 22:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
The removed groups were secular, as I explained in the edit summary, and planned to create a secular state, much like the DFLP and PFLP. You cannot claim the same for the Islamist groups you removed. Jayjg (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
How is the Kurdistan Workers Party Islamist? As for other groups I removed, many are unheard of while others might be Muslims having used terrorist tactics, but are not necessarily Islamist. a-n-o-n-y-m 23:20, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

You're right about the Kurdistan Workers Party. But how these:

They're not Islamist? Jayjg (talk) 23:29, 15 September 2005 UTC)

Yes, they are Islamist, but are they terrorist? The description says that they want to create an Islamic state, it doesn't say anything about violent tactics. I would not oppose re-adding them as a compromise. In the cases of some listed organizations, I will see whether they will fit this article. In many cases believe it or not, the US has made up its own descriptions of what it believes to be terrorist organizations. Obviously if the only sources we can find are from here in the US, it's probably not the best resource. The US labels everything as terrorist. a-n-o-n-y-m 23:51, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

  • AE, I wonder if you could say for each of the following what your reasoning is. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:52, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
The Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades (كتائب شهداء الاقصى) are one of the militias of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's al-Fatah faction. So? They are not Islamist are they? They are both a security organization and one that has uses some methods of terrorism as resistance. Basically they are at the level of separatists. -- a-n-o-n-y-m 00:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
They're seen as Islamist insofar as they carry out joint attacks with Hamas and Hezbollah, and are believed to be financed by the latter. I'll look around to see whether there are solid sources saying they're Islamist. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Asbat Al-Ansar: Aims to establish a fundamentalist Islamic state in Lebanon — deleted
Already agreed to re-add to article. -- a-n-o-n-y-m 00:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Okay. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
What is the proof??? The Bush admin thinks every organization like this is allied to Al-Qaeda. -- a-n-o-n-y-m 00:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
If we needed proof, we'd never be able to tie anyone to al-Qaeda. But there's evidence, and the U.S. government is regarded as a good source for Wikipedia. We can add "according to the U.S. government" if you think we should, but then we'd need to establish that no one else had made that link. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Gama’a al-Islamiyya: Aims to replace Egypt's government with an Islamic state — deleted
Already agreed to re-add to article. -- a-n-o-n-y-m 00:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Okay. SlimVirgin (talk) 00
58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Not proven. How do we know that they are linked? It doesn't even say that in the wiki article on that organization. Many times you wil get pro-Indian campaigners which will link numerous organizations to Al-Qaeda with no proof at all. Anyways, I left that organization in anyways.-- a-n-o-n-y-m 00:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Okay, then we should find a reputable source for the al-Qaeda allegation. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Hizballah — deleted that they're committed to the destruction of Israel and the establishment of the Islamic state of Palestine
That is completely POV. Saying that the only reason they are considered terrorist is because they are anti-Israel or want a Palestinian state is very POV. They were created to cause Israel to withdraw from Lebanon and resist any further attempts by Israel to invade Lebanon. They are a political party with a military wing, thus they are committed to many things. I also left this organization in the article, and would support any NPOV description that can be created. -- a-n-o-n-y-m 00:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
They're not considered religious terrorists because they want a Palestinian state, but because they're committed to the destruction of Israel and the establishment of an Islamic (or Islamist) state of Palestine. Are you saying they aren't committed to this? And they're considered terrorist by just about every Western government so far as I know. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, I mean saying that they are commtted to the destruction of Israel is quite POV in my view. Their entire ideology is clarified by the reason they were created (as a resistance org).-- a-n-o-n-y-m 01:08, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Very little is known about the movement. Most of it is just speculation How do we know that they want a "Taleban" model state? What is known though is that any terrorism that does happen in Uzbekistan is blamed on them for some reason by the current Uzbek administration. a-n-o-n-y-m 00:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Okay, so again it's a question of finding a decent source. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Jaish e Mohammed (JeM): JeM seeks the 'liberation' of Kashmir from Indian control as well as the destruction of America and India — deleted that they seek the destruction of India and U.S.
Is saying that they want destruction of country x and country y really relevant? It's unfair to say that especially since its a) unproven and b) they never have committed any terrorism against U.S. a-n-o-n-y-m 00:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Again, we need a source. But if they said it, then it's definitely relevant. If groups don't want to have statements like that attributed to them, all they have to do is not make them in the first place. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
But, others put words into the mouths of such organizations.-- a-n-o-n-y-m 01:08, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Plain and simple: Aren't Islamist. They are one's who want a socialist state, not Islamic. They opppose the current theocracy too. a-n-o-n-y-m 00:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. So anyone wanting to re-add this needs to find a good source. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
No. This one is an exception because they want a democratic, secular government in Iran (this is quoted from our own wikipedia article). Therefore, just like jayjg removed a secular terrorist organization from the "Jewish" section, this should also be excluded. They are non-religious, they are secular in this case. a-n-o-n-y-m 01:08, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Lashkar e Tayyaba (LT): LT seeks Islamic control for Kashmir and reestablishment of Islamic rule over entire India — deleted that they seek Islamic control over Kashmir.
Yes, I reworded it to make it NPOV. They don't want Islamic control; they want Kashmiri control. Just because they are Muslim does not mean that they want Islamic control. They are basically seperatists who use terrorism tactics. I said it seeks an independant Kashmir and reestablishment of Islamic rule over India. I am not even sure about whether they want Islamic rule over India and still I left it in. Once again, I did not delete the organization from the article. a-n-o-n-y-m 00:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Okay, fair point. Again, if this is to be re-added, we need to find a good source saying the group is specifically fighting for Islamic control of Kashmir. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Hope that clarifies a few things SV. Glad to help. a-n-o-n-y-m 00:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for this, AE. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
No problem. Also remember that obviously US sources will have a bias, even I'm saying this as an American. But we will see what happens. Thanks, a-n-o-n-y-m 01:08, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] JDL

I'm wondering about the inclusion of the JDL. The article is about groups who used "violence to further what they see as divinely commanded purposes." I'm not sure which divinely commanded purposes the JDL is seeking to further through violence. First, what current or recent violence (as a group) has there been, and secondly, what are we saying the purposes of it are? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Besides, the last line excludes the JDL from consideration in the list "the group is not thought to have any current connection to terrorism."Dusty78 03:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Religion or race

The term "Jewish terrorism" is directed here. Jews are a race as well as a religion. All of the edits made on the grounds the groups are not religious should be reinserted. Or a new page for "Jewish terrorism" must be created.

I'm working on that. See Talk:Jewish extremist terrorism.--Urthogie 08:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bold

Why are the Christian and Jewish groups bold but the Muslim groups aren't? POV? Rmt2m 19:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rename suggestion

I suggest a rename to religious terrorism. The content would not need to change, really. Thanks for input, --Urthogie 15:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable entries

There's two groups I'm not entirely sure are relevant to the topic. First, under Abu Sayyaf it states that the group "aims for the establishment of an Islamic state in the Southern Philippines." Now as far as I'm aware nobody is exactly sure what it is that Abu Sayyaf is aiming for, aside from ransom money from kidnappings. Some scholars classify it as simply a crime syndicate and I've even come across some works which speculate that it is in some way connected with the Phillipino military who support the group in the aim of undermining the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. I'm not advocating either interpretation, merely pointing out that Abu Sayyaf is a somewhat murky group and any definite statement of what their intent is seems like over-reach (though I'd be happy to stand corrected if someone can come up with some sources in support of the claim).

The KKK is also slightly dubious, in my opinion. Whilst they do have a certain religious element in their ideology it is by no means the primary motivation for their acts. In particular it seems strange that the KKK is included but similar religiously-oriented but not primarily religiously motivated groups (such as the IRA, the LVF or the UVF) are not. Daduzi 18:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the details on the first group so I couldn't comment on that. As far as the KKK I'd say that its not about motivation so much as the fact that they use religion for justification.--Urthogie 20:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What about the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA)?

And also the Ulster Defence Association?

Both of these groups (and others) in Ireland are organized around religious divisions and also are terrorist.

Here's a good article to find a religious terrorists: Terrorism Act 2000

87.118.100.99 08:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

No. In this case terrorism is not religiously, but ethnically and politically motivated: Irish/Republican - British/Loyalist.The situation is similar to conflict between Serbs and Croats in former Yugoslavia. Yeti 08:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
You can't make such a distinction. In every case in which there is significant "religious" terrorism, two ethnically disparate groups living in close proximity espouse competing religions. That's fine unless one group gains a political advantage over the other and warmongers sell them weapons. Wowest 04:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect entries

Why Nagaland Rebels are included as a RELIGIUOS group? What SYNCRETIC sect Lord's Resistance Army does amongst CHRISTIAN groups? How many terrorist attacks commited Westboro Baptist Church? These entries should be removed. Yeti 01:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the Lord's Resistance Army to a new section as this is not a christian organization but syncretic and join elements taken from christianity, traditional african religions and islam.

Westboro Baptist Church - actually IS NOT a terrorist organization. Yeti 14:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aum Shinrikyo

Not exactly Buddhist, maybe should put this under Sectarian?

[edit] Repeated

There was this "Jeemah Islameeya" written twice under the Islamic section. Does that mean someone is trying to make the Islamic section appear longer? or maybe it's just a mistake. Anyway I removed it. --212.162.130.85 17:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Westboro Baptist Church

Are these guys really terrorists? I thought they were a non-violent group. Have they been designated terrorists by the CIA or FBI? I'm taking them off until this is cleared up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.67.90.241 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC).


Actually I have quite serious concerns about this article, the tone seems to be one of trying to find other groups that can compete with violent Islamic terrorists. I think it deserves some clearing up. I don't know how we are definining terrorist or how we are defining religious.

[edit] Ku Klux Klan Should Not Be On Here

The KKK attacked Hispanics and Irishmen because they hated those groups, mostly due to a xenophobic dislike of immigrants. The religious issue was secondary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.184.244.25 (talk) 02:15, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

And some people would say that al Qaeda is primarily fighting against Western occupation of Arab lands, and the whole Islam thing is secondary. Doesn't matter. Al Qaeda and the Ku Klux Klan are still both religiously-motivated terrorists. — coelacan talk — 02:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

That's disingenuous. The KKK have numerous "churches" associated with their movement, including, for example, "The Mountain Church of Christ" in Howell, Michigan, which was associated with the late KKK Grand Dragon Robert Miles. Other people associated with their cabal distributed related literature promoting a "British Israelite" theory in which the only true Jews were now the British Christians, and people now calling themselves Jews are not Jews because they rejected their Messiah. According to this theory, as presented by the KKK members, black people are not even human. It's all presented in a "religious" package, and some people accept the whole thing. Somehow, it's easier to do horrible things if you believe that you're a member of an elite group and your victims are not. Wowest 04:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nagaland Rebels

I removed the reference to the Nagaland rebels, as per the discussion on the Christian terrorism page.--MarcusAnniusCatiliusSeverus 04:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Christian Identity

They may be hateful, but I can't find reference to any violence so am removing them from the article.

[edit] Introduction

I've removed this paragraph from the introduction:

"Further items often neglected in opposing views about terror are; 1) the rights of "innocent third parties" who are tragically manipulated or sacrificed as pawns in political conflicts; and 2) the deception which ferments at the core of terrorism. Deception masks itself behind various strategies of propaganda and indoctrination. Whatever their motives, fabricated threats lie at the essence of effective terrorist tactics, religious or political. Lies about intentions to wreak chaos may generate fears comparable to physical devastation. In short, at the critical nucleus of terror lie the mesmerizing powers of propaganda and indoctrination."

It seems like someone's original research and is strongly POV.--Nydas(Talk) 17:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Robert J. Goldstein

Goldstein is a terrorist who planned to destroy a massive amount of Muslim property. There are many others just like him whom I believe should be added to this list.

[edit] Irgun

Removed, as the Irgun was not a religious organization. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but by that reasoning, none of the Islamist terrorist groups are religious organizations

Wowest 09:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't expect logic to get in the way of a gang of revisionists. This is considered 'sensitive' - there is to be as little discussion of the (abundant) historical examples of Jewish terrorism as possible. Note the glaring lack of a Jewish terrorism main article. 74.56.218.173 (talk) 10:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do not confuse "Jewish" as the ethnicity with "Judaism" as the religion. This article is specifically about Religious terrorism. Shall we include the Red Army Faction because Gudrun Ensslin was a Christian? Of course not, the terrorism was not related to the religion. Same with the Irgun. See below at Talk:Religious terrorism#Irgun and Lehi. -- Avi (talk) 14:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Atheistic Religous Terrorism?

Shouldn't men such as Stalin be added, as atheist terrorists? Of course, "atheism" is not to blame for his genocide (or Hitler, or Rasputan, or Pol Pot: all atheists) but "christianity" or "Judaism" cannot be blammed for radicals who go against their teachings.

It might add more depth to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.242.193.228 (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Any definition of religious terrorism includes a claim of religious justification, be it directly from the views of the religion, or from the more controversial interpretations of those views. I don't think atheism has those views (or misinterpretations) to use as a justification. I do agree with you that Christianity, Islam, Juadism, or any other religion cannot be blamed for extremists who misinterpret their views. Bastc (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Definition is POV

In Islamic terrorism the definition has recently been changed from "religious terrorism by those whose motivations and aims have a predominant Islamic character or influence" to "religious terrorism by those whose motivations are rooted in their interpretations of Islam". I suggest the same change is made in Religious terrorism, as the current definition implies that the motivations and aims of a religious terrorist are actually supported or condoned by the religious beliefs itself. In reality, only a very small minority of Christians, Muslims or Jews support this interpretation of their religious texts and laws; The vast majority of the major religions condemn acts of terrorism.

Since the term religious terrorism is easily misused to ignore the real motivations of a terrorist, and to demonize a religion based on the acts and beliefs of a minority of that religion, we should take more care defining the term itself. For instance, the motivations for the 9-11 attacks, the largest example of religious terrorism, show little Islamic influence or character. Most of the motivations are related to American foreign policy, only (mis)using Islamic texts to exhort violent action. The predominant influence is not Islam, but a very negative view of American foreign policy, guided by a controversial interpretation of Islam. In the same article, president Bush used the alledged Islamic motivation of al-Qaeda by stating "They hate ... a democratically elected government. ... They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other." This contradicts the reaction by the muslim organisations in America, who "called upon Muslim Americans to come forward with their skills and resources to help alleviate the sufferings of the affected people and their families". Former CIA Bin Laden Unit Chief Michael Scheuer explains that "politicians really are at great fault for not squaring with the American people. We're being attacked for what we do in the Islamic world, not for who we are or what we believe in or how we live."

Since it's blatantly obvious that no major religion incorporates these violent views, and religion is only used as a tool by extremists to justify their actions with interpretations not supported by the vast majority of the religion, the definition should at least cast some doubt over the religious motivations of the terrorists. Bastc (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Goldstein

All other examples here are of groups, not individuals. Therefore, as this article stands now, both specific Goldstien and Zata examples are inappropriate. Thoughts? -- Avi (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Christian terrorism and Islamic terrorism both include individuals. The only reason it looks odd here is because "Jewish terrorism" has no main article.129.215.37.171 (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Irgun and Lehi

These were not Jewish terrorist groups, if anything they were Zionist. Their raison d'être was the formation of a state of Israel, and preferably a secular, non-religious state to boot. This article is specifically about religious-based terrorism, and as the appellation "Jewish" can refer to both an ethnicity and a religion, I believe it is incorrect to use it as a synonym for Zionism. Thoughts? -- Avi (talk) 07:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I take your point Avi about the conflation of Judaism and Zionism, and also the distinction between Jewish religion and Jewish "ethnicity". Somewhat ironically they were also strongly Fascist in their reverence for Mussolini, and Stern's willingness to collaborate with Hitler. However when you write "a secular, non-religious state to boot" with all due respect this is absurd if you read people like Avraham Stern (the founder of Lehi).
Avaham Stern's "18 Principles of Rebirth"
1. THE NATION The Jewish people is a covenanted people, the originator of monotheism, formulator of the prophetic teachings, standard bearer of human culture, guardian of glorious patrimony. The Jewish people is schooled in self-sacrifice and suffering; its vision, survivability and faith in redemption are indestructible. (This doesn't sound very "secular" to me)
2. THE HOMELAND The homeland in the Land of Israel within the borders delineated in the Bible ("To your descendants, I shall give this land, from the River of Egypt to the great Euphrates River." Genesis 15:18) This is the land of the living, where the entire nation shall live in safety. (This doesn't sound very "secular" to me either!)
3. THE NATION AND ITS LAND Israel conquered the land with the sword. There it became a great nation and only there it will be reborn. Hence Israel alone has a right to that land. This is an absolute right. It has never expired and never will. (Right or wrong, distorted or undistorted, this is certainly at least a reference to Judaic scripture)
4. THE GOALS 1. Redemption of the land. 2. Establishment of sovereignty. 3. Revival of the nation. There is no sovereignty without the redemption of the land, and there is no national revival without sovereignty.
These are the goals of the organization during the period of war and conquest:
5. EDUCATION Educate the nation to love freedom and zealously guard Israel's eternal patrimony. Inculcate the idea that the nation is master to its own fate. Revive the doctrine that "The sword and the book came bound together from heaven" (Midrash Vayikra Rabba 35:8) (That's a citation of the book of Leviticus, a text that is sacred to both Jews and Christians)
6. UNITY The unification of the entire nation around the banner of the Hebrew freedom movement. The use of the genius, status and resources of individuals and the channeling of the energy, devotion and revolutionary fervour of the masses for the war of liberation.
7. PACTS Make pacts with all those who are willing to help the struggle of the organization and provide direct support.
8. FORCE Consolidate and increase the fighting force in the homeland and in the Diaspora, in the underground and in the barracks, to become the Hebrew army of liberation with its flag, arms, and commanders. (He is of course referring to the Jewish diaspora, a religious diaspora)
9. WAR Constant war against those who stand in the way of fulfilling the goals.
10. CONQUEST The conquest of the homeland from foreign rule and its eternal possession.
These are the tasks of the movement during the period of sovereignty and redemption:
11. SOVEREIGNTY Renewal of Hebrew sovereignty over the redeemed land.
12. RULE OF JUSTICE The establishment of a social order in the spirit of Jewish morality and prophetic justice. Under such an order no one will go hungry or unemployed. All will live in harmony, mutual respect and friendship as an example to the world.
13. REVIVING THE WILDERNESS Build the ruins and revive the wilderness for mass immigration and population increase.
14. ALIENS Solve the problem of alien population [i.e. the Arab inhabitants of Palestine] by exchange of population.
15. INGATHERING OF THE EXILES Total in-gathering of the exiles to their sovereign state.
16. POWER The Hebrew nation shall become a first-rate military, political, cultural and economical entity in the Middle East and around the Mediterranean Sea.
17. REVIVAL The revival of the Hebrew language as a spoken language by the entire nation, the renewal of the historical and spiritual might of Israel. The purification of the national character in the fire of revival.
18. THE TEMPLE The building of the Third Temple as a symbol of the new era of total redemption. (I certainly wouldn't describe a temple as a "secular" institution ;-)
Just imagine for a moment that Stern was a Muslim, and instead of using the word "Jewish", Stern used the word "Muslim" would you still describe him as a "secular" terrorist?
They predicated their movement on a perversion of the teachings of Judaism, just as Al Qaeda and some other supposedly "Islamist" terrorists do with the teachings of Islam. Usama Bin Ladin and Ayman Al Zawahiri are not Imams, just as the likes of Jabotinsky, Stern, Shamir et al were not Rabbis. However they used religion just as Al Qaeda do, even though their words have little to do with credible religious teachings of their respective religions. They cannot write of building "Third Temples", use biblical quotations and prophecies to further their cause then assume the cloak of secularity when it suits.
As for Irgun, I think that your case is a little stronger. However Ze'ev Jabotinsky (Irgun's founder) said "every Jew had the right to enter Palestine". Why does every Jew have the right to enter Palestine? because of secular reasons? Because of religious reasons? Or Both? He goes on to write only Jewish armed force would ensure the Jewish state". Once again, if terrorists who happen to be Muslim issue statements like "Only Muslim armed force would ensure the Muslim state" they would described by all and sundry as an "Islamist terrorists" or "religious terrorists" would they not? To say that this is true for Muslims and not true for Jews is unfair and this semantic duality has been used to deceive at times.Paulzon (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Even if you are 100% correct in your analysis, it is not acceptable to make the link solely based on that as it is original research or synthesis. We have these, at times, draconian-seeming guidelines to prevent the project from becoming a morass of conflicting opinions in which facts are smothered by various special-interest groups. Unfortunate, but necessary :( -- Avi (talk) 12:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Original Research? Most of that information is on Wikipedia already, and it's sourced, and I provided links. So with all due respect, I don't know what you mean by this Avi? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulzon (talk • contribs) 12:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

What I mean is calling the Irgun and Lehi "Religious" is not common knowledge, and is likely disputed, so you would need to find a verifiable and reliable secondary source that overtly makes that statement, and even so, it would have to pass WP:NPOV#Undue weight. I apologize if I cam across critical of your analysis, but, especially in contentious areas, we are all best served by being extra careful, regardless of how strong or weak you or I think the evidence may be. Oh, and wikipedia itself may never be used as a source, it is the very definition of unreliable since we all can change it at a moments notice. -- Avi (talk) 14:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

If the Irgnu and Lehi were not Jewish then what religion were they? Christian? Muslim? Or maybe atheists?
To quote Jewish - "A jew is a member of the Jewish people, an ethnoreligious group".
If someone says "X is a Jewish terrorist" I think it is entirely appropriate for this article - it would be Original Research to say "no, X is ethnically a Jew, but is not follower of Judaism" unless you have a citation for this. 129.215.37.151 (talk) 13:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

No. Consensus on wikipedia is to treat Jewish ethnicity and Judaism the religion as separate entities. Please do not conflate the two. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 11:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Council on American Islamic Relations a "terrorist group"?!

This is ridiculous entry that transcends mere "POV". It is Islamophobic, libellous and shames Wikipedia. If Wikipedia editors are going to play this game, then we may as well include "AIPAC" and the "ADL" as terrorist organisations too. If I were a member of CAIR looking at this I would certainly consider legal action against it's inclusion, and the "sources" cited are also a travesty of Wiki's NPOV policy. I propose removing it and removing it soon. Paulzon (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed CAIR from the list. None of the sources were sufficient to support its inclusion. Remember that you are and editor yourself and can fix these sorts of problems yourself. Due to the nature of Wikipedia there will always be problems in need of fixing, and you can help fix them. :) Be BOLD. -Neitherday (talk) 02:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Neitherday. I'll try to be more bold in future! ;-) Paulzon (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

CAIR is as much a terrorist group as is CAMERA, which means that it indubitably is not. Whether it has links to terrorist groups is irrelevant for the purposes of this article, and it should never have been here. Good job removing it. -- Avi (talk) 12:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Church of Scientology

Someone has put the Church of Scientology in now. I know that some people have strong views about it but this is ridiculous! I'm removing it. Paulzon (talk) 12:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mahdi Army

The Mahdi army are no mothers knitting circle, but they aren't really a terrorist group either, they're a Shi'ite militia. They're not on the US List of Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations, or any other to my knowledge. [1] Paulzon (talk) 13:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious, Paul, seriously. You have obviously given this a lot of thought. What makes the Mahdi Army more of a militia and less of a terrorism organization than the Irgun or Lehi? Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
This is an inherent flaw in making any NPOV list of terrorist organizations: there has never been a clear cut and agreed upon definition of terrorism. -Neitherday (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
You, personally, don't need to decide if the Mahdi Army are terrorist or not. Wikipedia rules: if a reliable source publishes that "x says the Mahdi army are (Muslim/religious) terrorists", then that can be included here. See WP:TERRORIST. 129.215.37.171 (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
True. To conform to WikiPedia guidelines, what should be listed here is "Religious groups that have been labeled as terrorist organizations" and each group's entry should list who it is that calls the group a terrorist organization. -Neitherday (talk) 23:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish terrorism

User:Avraham has removed a large amount of content from the Jewish terrorism section of this article.[2][3][4] He claims that this diff [5] is "original research" - how can it be original research when every single point is attributed and cited to a reliable source? It appears that there is a disturbing bias here:

  • If a group, person or event is described as being "Jewish terrorism", then that can't be mentioned in this article, because the word "Jewish" refers to an ethnic group as well as a religion. This standard is applied even when it is obvious from the surrounding context that "Jewish" is being used to refer to a person of Jewish religion eg. see this diff [6] - it is clear from the cited article that the Washington Post consider Zaza to have been Jewish in the religious sense.
  • "Jewish terrorism" has no main article. It appears that when one has been created in the past, it's been swiftly deleted.
  • In order to sanitise this page of Jewish terrorists a new rule has been invented - "individuals are not to be included on this page". The Dalai Lama content is entirely appropriate, correctly cited from a reliable source, and has been undisturbed for over a week. The moment it gets included in the discussion over Jewish terrorism, it is suddenly removed and a new rule - "no individuals" - cited as the reason.
  • Islamic terrorism and Chrisian terrorism main articles both include individuals. But Jewish terrorism has no individuals, because it has no main article.

Questions:

  • Where did this "no individuals rule" come from? Is it just something invented in the last week to justify sanitising the "Jewish terrorism" section of the article?
  • If everyone agrees to the rule, then surely we need some new main articles to discuss Jewish terrorism and the Dalai Lama allegations?
  • We can't have a situation where every mention of "Jewish terrorism" is banned because the word "Jew" refers to an ethnoreligious group. Comments?

129.215.37.141 (talk) 13:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Rather than discuss these issues, User:Avraham has now requested[7] that further editing on this article be banned via Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. 129.215.37.140 (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe you are under a misconception. We have discussed the conflation of ethnicity and religion on this page before. It is improper to list nationalist, separatist, or secular Zionist groups on this page. This page is exclusively for religious-based terrorism. Arab nationalist terrorism does not belong on this page either, just Islam-based terror. The fact that the term "Jewish" is used for both the religion and the ethnicity, while eminently understandable due to the unique history the religion has played in the ethnic identity, has nevertheless been deemed inappropriate in terms of allowing bleed over from ethnicity to religion and vice versa in many areas, such as categories. Here is no different. Organizations whose terror is sourced in the religion are totally acceptable; non-religious terror groups who are formed/manned by ethnic Jews, even if those Jews are themselves religious, are not, as this page is for religious-based terror. As for the other points raised:
  • No other entry on the page had individuals; the Dalai Llama was a recent addition which I missed. There is no justification for singling out one or two religions for individual examples. If there are enough, then I completely agree with you that a new article page should be started for each religion. If not, we are violating WP:UNDUE.
  • We are not banning ever mention, are we, there are a number of examples under the Jewish section, some of which I expanded myself

-- Avi (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I do not want to deliberately conflate ethnicity with religion, but I do think that some common sense needs to be applied here - if the cited article is suggesting that a person is religious, then is it not original research to dismiss the article on the grounds that the person may also be from a particular ethnic group?
  • Both Islamic terrorism and Christian terrorism include individuals. Why should Jewish terrorism and Buddhist terrorism not include them? The subject of this article is "religious terrorism" - the content is appropriately placed here. I believe that when you say Judaism and Buddhism are being "singled out" you are missing the point that the Christian and Islamic articles both include individuals, and are split out into separate articles because of their size. There seems to be no point in splitting out Judaism and Buddhism based on size, so that is why the content is different - something that you are perceiving as deliberate bias. When a main article is present, the content here only needs to be a brief summary.
  • Given that other people may infer some bias here you may be right that new articles are needed, based on that reason alone. It would also correct the alternative bias viewpoint (I note that on Talk:Islamic terrorism the point has been made several times that Jewish terrorism has no main article).
  • The bottom line is that the individual terrorism content on Buddhism and Judaism is appropriate either here, or in main articles. Which do you support? 129.215.37.156 (talk) 11:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Definition

Has anyone bothered defining what "Jewish religious terrorism" would possibly mean in a rational WP:NPOV way without it being a violation of WP:OR or WP:NEO? Oh, in such a serious forum with a topic of such consequences, why doesn't the above anon get a Wikipedia user name to help build confidence that this discussion is moving along entirely WP:AGF lines. Thanks a lot, IZAK (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The book "Terror in the mind of God" has a chapter on Jewish religious terrorism. That is (some of) the content that was deleted. Can you explain why you think it is "Original Research"? Or if you're concerned about conflating ethnicity with religion - suggest an acceptable title that applies to followers of Judaism? 129.215.37.156 (talk) 10:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi 129.215.37.156, thanks for responding, hope you can get a regular Wikipedia user ID soon. Well, there is no such thing as "Jewish terrorism" as such because Judaism does not advocate terrorism of any kind nor does being Jewish have a connection with the phenomenon of terrorism, so that for the word "Jewish" as a prefix to be added to describe something as if there is an objective normative "Jewish" terrorism is false. It would be like asking for "Jewish warfare" or "Jewish fighting" when there is no such thing. What there is, is terrorism, or warfare or fighting by people who may or may not be religious Jews or ethnic Jews and if it's truly describable and explicable in rational, objective, scholarly and NPOV ways then by all means go for it. One can also call a spade a spade and talk specifically of Kahanism and the spin-off groups that indeed advocate/d a form of "terrorism" but it can in no way be called, labelled or misconstrued as a definitive reflection of Judaism or what being Jewish means, since Judaism and being Jewish is a peaceful thing. Perhaps there could be an article about Terrorism by Jews in Jewish history or Terrorism by Jewish groups in the modern age or some such title, so that it is clear that it is not "Jewish terrorism" but acts of terrorism by Jews that is the subject. Hope this helps. IZAK (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
We have "Christian terrorism". The Christian Bible does not advocate terrorism. Why is that okay, but not "Jewish terrorism"? -Neitherday (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Neitherday: Two wrongs do not make a right! There should not be "Christian terrorism" either because Christianity is officially not a religion of "terror" nor should being Christian become a prefix for terrorism which it is not. How many groups are there in the world today that justify their supposed "terror" in the name of Christianity? Probably about zero! I hate to say it, but in today's world, neither Christians nor Jews nor Christianity nor Judaism are supportive of or advocate any form of terror or terrorism. Which then brings us to how to decribe what is happening with the Islamic world and Muslims today and what that is called, and no doubt it is because of radical Islam and its consequnces that this discussion is taking place in the first place and that in a silly desire to placate, and act as "honest brokers" that moral relativism then kicks in and rather than there being a focus on major facts and a serious real topic, a whole set of other bogus topics are created to create an impression of contrived even-handed "neutrality" when reality clearly runs in the opposite direction. Just some thoughts, IZAK (talk) 02:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted content

It seems nobody wants to deal with the POV pushers who are willing to log in every day to revert appropriate and well sourced content. For the record, the content is below, maybe some day the Wikipedia model will deal better with the "my religion doesn't have any terrorists!" people. 129.215.37.177 (talk) 15:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Just because something has a source does not mean it is appropriate. Please review WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH; Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 22:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Please explain why you think this content is any of those things:
  • UNDUE - The cited publishers are the University of California Press and The Times. They are both credible publishers and should be strongly weighted. Why do you think using them at all would represent undue weight?
  • NPOV - The Wikipedia content appears to be a neutral and accurate representation of the original sources. Which specific sentences do you think are not neutral?
  • OR - Which content do you think is original research? The text is an accurate representation of the original sources. Which sentences do you have a problem with? Have you actually read the original sources?
  • SYNTH - Again, the text is an accurate representation of what the original sources say. What do you think is being synthesised here? Which statements do you think are unsupported by the original sources?
129.215.37.134 (talk) 23:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question

"Judaism does not condone or encourage political violence or terrorism. " I know for a fact this is true, but I am under the impression Christianity doesn't either.--69.234.193.143 (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

  • This article should be about religious terrorism. It is not List of religious terror groups. If you want, then move the lists to a new article. But what is the point:
  • What is the point in including the list of Islamic groups? They are only one click away in the main article. If we include the list of Christian groups, this article will become ridiculously long. So I propose removing the list. The information is only one click away in the appropriate main article.
  • In a similar vein, what is the point of including the Jewish groups? There is an appropriate main article. When a main article is available the accompanying text only needs to be a short summary. Anyone interested in reading more is only one click away.
  • How on earth is the NDA not a terrorist group??? They're carried out a series of bombings, are fighting for a Hindu state, and claim to have 1,200 trained soldiers and 5 trained suicide bombers in their command.

129.215.37.149 (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and the Hindustan Times, which is a reliable source, published Hindu Al-Qaeda training suicide bombers in Nepal. Come on guys, this article is a joke when everyone is pushing the "my religion has no terrorists" POV... 129.215.37.149 (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)