Talk:Islamic terrorism

Archives of older discussions can be found here:

• Talk:Islamist terrorism/Archive 1

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

Quality of writing

Big problems on this front in this article. Could other editors comment on the compositional quality of the article as a whole, please?

I'm thinking of passages like the following, which sound distinctly un-encyclopedic to me.

• The Saudi regime is perceived as being too closely associated with American foreign policy, particularly through granting permission to the United States to conduct military operations and establish bases on what is viewed as sacred soil. ("Is perceived" -- by whom, specifically, and where is the citation? "Is viewed as" -- ditto. The sentence gives the distinct impression that American military forces are still based in Saudi Arabia. Last time I checked, they had decamped for Qatar.)

• The extent of support for "Islamist terrorism" within the Muslim population is disputed, although it is generally agreed that only the most extremist fringes support it. (Here we have a similarly dubious use of passive voice, which shows up, once again, twice in same sentence. As for "only the most extremist fringes" it is woefully non-specific)

• The problem is, of course, the term " creating disorder in the land " for which the Islamist terrorist see their enemies as those creating disorder in the land of Islam. (Does this sentence parse? Does "of course" even belong in an encyclopedia? Does the reader have any idea which specific "terrorists" we are referring to, and, for that matter, how we are able to read their minds? Note, too, the embarrassing singular/plural disagreement: "the Islamist terrorist see their enemies...". This passage could have been lifted -- and for all I know, was lifted -- from someone's 3:00 am draft of a term paper.)

It's hard to imagine any of the above showing up in, say, the Columbia Encyclopedia.

Now, before somebody asks me to get to work on improving the deformed sentences above, let me share my firm conviction that the very best way to repair them and their brethren is to delete them in their entirety.

Failing that, perhaps some other editors could discuss the best remedy for the vast chunks of this article that are written at this level? Perhaps a notice up front warning readers of the generally terrible quality of the prose that follows, and appealing for their help? BrandonYusufToropov 13:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Ohanian's edits and more!

I think Ohanian's edits were not exactly proper.... you cannot say 'The phrase "or for creating disorder in the land" has been misused by the Islamist terrorists' because, well... who is to say they are misusing it. Terrorists are Muslim, even if their mindset is not followed by all Muslims and you cannot be saying that their viewpoint isn't Islamic. So, it isn't misuse, it's just a different and more intolerant use. Not to mention that the Qur'an quote analysis on most of the stuff here is original research.

Also, getting into the habit of interpretting subjects by single Qur'an quotes is not how Islamic jurisprudence works (and is why we need to cite more scholarly sources and not just Qur'an). Fiqahs have to know a great deal about thOct e Qu'ran and hadith as a whole before they can rule because of the intricacies so that they can know the whole story. So, we should make that clear instead of focussing solely on quotes. gren グレン 12:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I've changed "misused" to "used". --Lee Hunter 13:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

== David Gibson == comment on sentence presenting viewpoint The sentence "Also, to Al-Qaeda in particular, the world is viewed as a struggle between their extreme Islamist ideology on one hand and Zionism, Christianity and the secular West on the other." Says that it is the view of Al-Qaeda. I do not believe that Al-Qaeda views their ideology as "extreme Islamist ideology". First, they do not believe that they are extreme. While I disagree with them. That does appear to be their view. Second, they do not view themselves as Islamists but as the only true representatives of Islam. Thus, the term Islamic is appropriate in this sentence since it is purporting to present the view of Al-Qaeda and not the view of the author of the article. The sentence should read "Also, to Al-Qaeda in particular, the world is viewed as a struggle between their Islamic ideology on one hand and Zionism, Christianity and the secular West on the other." == David Gibson Oct 13, 2005 12:35 PM EST

Tor vandals

The last anon also vandalized a user page besides revert warring here. He is using the Tor proxy program. Any IP that continues in this revert war should be indefinitely blocked as it's an open proxy. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-3 22:10

Nonsense, as shown to you in IRC. 129.7.35.213 22:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• I wasn't referring to your IP. Care to explain why the 72.9 IP is listed on the Tor proxy list? Get over yourself. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-3 22:35

• Apart from that, 129.7.35.213. Can you tell us about those Australian sources? Also, apart from the existence/inexistence of those sources, or those deliberately trying to portray the faith in the best possible light even at the expense of truthfulness is considered POV in both Australia and Wiki planet. Cheers -- Svest 22:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)  ^{Wiki me up™}
  • No he can't. I blocked him for vandalizing User:Anonymous editor. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-3 22:48
    • Lol. User has been blacklisted. :) --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 22:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
      • SMH. Wikipedia really drives people crazy. I need a wikibreak to take care of my GF. She even vandalized my usertalk yesterday for being in love with this place and not w/ her. At the end of the day, X.X.X.X comes out talking nonsense about Australians who've said nothing and we trying to be serious!.  ^{Wiki me up™}

Why?

I don't understand why the part regarding Australian Imams keeps getting removed. It is properly sourced.

Welcome back. Who are those Imams? --  ^{Wiki me up™}

Anon IP Blocked again for evading ban. Replying to these guys not necessary, svest :). --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 02:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

lol! Well, it seems very hard for me to know exactly about their schedule! Svest 02:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I was wrongly blocked. And the Imams in question are named in the article.

Suggested removal

"...particularly secular Muslims as well as those who support Muslim liberalism, do not accept that attacks on civilians can ever be justified by Islam."

This implies that practicing, conservative Muslims are more likely to support civilian attacks which is difficult to support POV. Also I'd suggest that for a practicing Muslim, "secular Muslim" is a contradiction-in-terms. I'd suggest removing the caveat. Marskell 10:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

It it entirely feasible to maintain a secular Muslim identity, particularly in the Balkan and Black Sea countries. Compare "secular Christian" or "multilayered identities". Please double-check yourself for possible hidden agendas when you delete or edit. --Big Adamsky 10:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

"Please double-check yourself for possible hidden agendas when you delete or edit." LOL. If you're referring to removing the sentence that began "Previously...", it was entirely unqualified and assumptive. "Previously..." who where when?

Of course it's possible to self-identify as a secular Muslim; I was just suggesting that for those who practice, such an identification would be bogus. The Five Pillars are fairly explicit. If you don't pray, fast, donate, make an attempt to go to Mecca, and (most obviously) submit to faith in Allah you aren't a Muslim in the eyes of people who do.

Finally, you don't answer the main complaint: the line tacitly suggests that conservative Muslims give support for targeting civilians. That's a very fair complaint, not a hidden agenda. Marskell 11:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

No, you missed the point: Namely that someone whose parents are Muslim (culturally or otherwise), does not lose his or her personal identity if he or she choses to ignore any or all of the dogmatic pillars. Secular identity does not (necessarily) contradict religion, as you seem to suggest. Nor does it constitute atheism, except in islamic law. The paragraph simply stated that secular Muslims are far more likely to have a broad non-biased world-view than traditional, orthodox or fundamentalist Muslims and that this may affect their likeliness to consider Islam and Islamism two very separate concepts.

The line specifically references attacks on civilans, not a general worldview. Should we or should we not suggest that traditional or conservative Muslims would be more likely to support attacks on civilans than their liberal counterparts? As it stands that's precisely what we suggest.

I have absolutely no desire to go round in circles on the religious identity argument but I must ask: how did I miss the points about parentage and abiding by the "dogmatic pillars" when you never referenced them? Marskell 12:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, we went round in circles on a point that was ultimately unrelated (who is a Muslim?) but I haven't seen an argument that the caveat is not POV. I have removed it. Marskell 08:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Dates in Examples of Islamist Terrorist section

I properly formatted all but one of the dates in this section. (It took a bit of detective work, half of them were in US date format, the rest in European date format). I can't determine whether "7/5/02 - Bombing in al-Arbaa, Algeria. 49 dead, 117 injured" took places on 5 July or 7 May. Any help is appreciated. Peyna 00:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

User:129.7.35.213 and User:129.7.35.102's edits

Don't you racists have better things to do than edit war over cited material?

• Dear anonymous editor, just because you have a citation doesn't mean that it is automatically encyclopedic. Yours truly, "Rascist". --Lee Hunter 18:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Considering I spell properly and you're just a racist... go soak your head. OR do some real research rather than being a censor monger.
    • Please do not make personal attacks - Tεxτurε 19:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Please do not be a censor monger.

Enough of this name calling. Let's do this the proper way. I am not knowledgeable on the topic, so forgive me when I have to remove material and demand attribution or rewording without doing it myself.

Islamist groups in non-Islamic nations around the world always try to portray themselves as respectable, and in many cases attempt to use the free speech rights of Western nations to promote hateful ideologies. These fit with the Islamic doctrines of Taqiyya and Kitman, which explicitly allow Muslims to lie and deceive infidels in the goal of furthering Islam's spread.

Not neutral, obviously, and not sourced. The paragraph implies islamist groups are never to be trusted. The Taqiyya article does not talk about "lying to infidels", it talks about permission to pretend to renounce faith under stress. That's slightly more subtle. JRM · Talk 21:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

A recent US Pentagon report indicates that US intelligence agencies analyzing the Koran are finding it not to be a document of religion hijacked by terrorists, but a manual of war followed by said terrorists. [1]

The internal document explains that Islam divides offensive jihad into a "three-phase attack strategy" for gaining control of lands for Allah. The first phase is the "Meccan," or weakened, period, whereby a small Muslim minority asserts itself through largely peaceful and political measures involving Islamic NGOs -- such as the Islamic Society of North America, which investigators say has its roots in the militant Muslim Brotherhood, and Muslim pressure groups, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations, whose leaders are on record expressing their desire to Islamize America.

In the second "preparation" phase, a "reasonably influential" Muslim minority starts to turn more militant. The briefing uses Britain and the Netherlands as examples.

And in the final jihad period, or "Medina Stage," a large minority uses its strength of numbers and power to rise up against the majority, as Muslim youth recently demonstrated in terrorizing France, the Pentagon paper notes.

Problem with this is that the quote is from what appears to be a blog. That's not a good source to get your information from. Paul Sperry, the author, claims to get it from "a new Pentagon briefing paper I've obtained". That means Paul Sperry is our primary source, but as a blogger Paul Sperry (correct me if I'm wrong) is not a notable or necessarily reliable source. JRM · Talk 21:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I moved the remaining section down further. It should not be ahead of basic sections describing the topic. The information moved here to the talk page is highly questionable without a verifying source. The cite used is an extremist right-wing site with no apologies for being so. - Tεxτurε 21:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I've reinstated the remaining quote from The Australian, sans the polemic. The section as a whole is now rather sparse, of course, but there's nothing wrong with that. JRM · Talk 21:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I've tried to clean up the language on the other report. Whatever your personal biases, Frontpage Magazine is a longstanding journalistic website, and they're directly quoting the document. We don't quibble if CBS or NBC or the LA Times quote a "document" that's not available for public consumption, so we have to give FP the same benefit of the doubt. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.35.102 (talk • contribs)

Using that logic I should be able to cite Al Jazeera as a reliable source. BTW, violating a block means that anyone can revert your edits at will. - Tεxτurε 21:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it does. I will protect the page if another revert war erupts, though, so it's a moot point. JRM · Talk 21:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Another user has just reminded me that an arbcom ruling has said that all his edits should be reverted. This would make a page protection inappropriate in the face of an arbcom decision. [2] - Tεxτurε 21:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Lies will get you nowhere. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.35.102 (talk • contribs)

Here's the ruling: [3] - Tεxτurε 22:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

False accusations will still get you nowhere.

The nice thing about AlJihadi is that they're easily refutable. And what is this violating a block that you speak of? - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.35.102 (talk • contribs)

It would be much more helpful if POV warriors like "Anonymous Editor" would kindly say WHY they revert, especially when they refer others to the talk page. I'm reverting this on the basis that "Anonymous Editor" is a known edit warrior with no respect for facts.

Just reverted that [snip] "Texture" again. Frontpagemag is a news source, not a blog. Yes, it covers things that the PC media try their best to hide. But they've yet to be wrong. Then again, I expect as much from the [editors] who accuse everyone of being sockpuppets rather than engage in real debate.

Edit warring

Edit warring is bad. Don't do it. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 22:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to place a note here: the hand of user:Anonymous Editor is readily apparent even if he personally has made no remarks here in the latest round. Numbers are fine and good but meatpuppetry and bad-faith gaming of the system to avoid 3RR aren't, and WP:EW specifically states that both sides of an edit war are supposed to be dealt with equally.

Whatever the specific complaints about the content, which seem to revolve about certain people wanting to attack the source (upon cursory examination, the source is valid), their behavior is deplorable and completely unhelpful, as is the behavior of admins who hand out large-scale blocks and admins who take accusations of being someone who left long ago and block on that assumption, and worse yet leave gloating talk-page messages about it, is even more deplorable.

I repeat calls for those who object to be more specific about why they object and come up with some freaking sources of their own already. As it stands, the source is valid, the material should be included until they can come up with a countersource or a better explanation than "I want to attack the messenger."

The internet is full of a billion piddling newsletters and so-called "magazines" that can give you "proof" that aliens are among us, black helicopters are flying over Montana, or that <name your group> are trying to take over the world. If you can cite an actual specific Pentagon document that's been seen by a notable person (preferably one who is not wearing a tinfoil hat and is not heavily medicated) I would be pleased to have it in the article. But like they say in science, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". The onus is on the person or persons who want this bizaare stuff in the article to prove that it comes from a legitimate source and is not another half-baked Internet crank with a creepy agenda. --Lee Hunter 01:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Frontpagemag is not a "half-baked" news source, as you so put it. Nor do their writers believe in black helicopters, nonhuman aliens among us (as opposed to mere "aliens" as in those of another nationality), tinfoil hats, or any of that nonsense.

If you are going to make such outlandish statements when trying to vilify a valid source, I'll just throw out any pretense that you're operating in good faith and consider the previous accusations of your bigotry well founded. What say you?

I agree with the previous writer. The report from the pentagon must stay in the article because we have hearsay evidence that an unknown report by an unknown author written at an unknown date for an unknown audience in the US government which a copy of the report is stolen by an unknown person and leak to the public is MORE THAN ENOUGH PROOF that the report must be genuine. Ohanian 06:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Unknown reports - QUITE COMMON in journalism. Journalists get access to things the public don't, sad to say. And quite often sources request anonymity before handing things like that over. What's your point? This is no different than any other governmental leak to a news source.

There are "journalists" and there are journalists. Real journalists are recognized as such by other journalists and by the public at large. Front Page does not qualify. Real journalists have their credibility, reputation and careers as journalists on the line when they quote anonymous sources. Having your very own article on a web page is all very special and precious but it doesn't make you a journalist. --Lee Hunter 13:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

It's too bad for our resident [abusive comment deleted] LeeHunter that Paul Sperry IS a recognized DC-based journalist who does freelance writing for a number of publications including Antiwar.com as well as having two published books.

Oops. LeeHunter was too busy trying to impugn the source to actually bother researching it. So Sad, Bye Bye, Come Back When You're Not A [abusive comment deleted].

Well, as I said before, the onus is not on everyone else to investigate your sources. FrontPage is an obscure far right Islamophobic website. Anything published there should normally be summarily dismissed as slanted beyond belief. Regarding Sperry, yes he seems to be a legitimate journalist. He's touted as an "investigative journalist" although I note that his main experience is writing for Investor's Business Daily, which is not exactly the proving ground for today's top investigative writers (to put it mildly). His "investigative" stuff is mostly published by FrontPage and WorldNetDaily (or as I like to call it WhirledNutDaily). To paraphrase a couple of reviewers of his book on Amazon, he's a bigoted nutjob. --Lee Hunter 17:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

And I disagree wholeheartedly. The fact remains that this person writes and is published by both sides of your "argument." If you think he's bigoted, dig up a countersource. He's notable enough to be a secondary source and that's all that is needed by policy. ApeAndPig

I don't have to go far to find evidence of his bigotry. His website and columns offer many, painfully clear examples. I haven't yet found evidence that any of his "investigative" breakthroughs have been picked up by anything other than fringe websites (mostly on the right but one, oddly enough, on the left), but I'm hoping that someone will show me something more substantial. --Lee Hunter 21:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

And yet you don't bother to actually quote a single source. You're as transparent as they come. The source is valid, stop your edit warring.ApeAndPig

I've already mentioned WorldNutDaily, FrontPage, and Paul Sperry's own website. Go look for yourself. You'll find numerous examples of raving bigotry labelled as "investigative" journalism. I realize that "mainstream media" is a dirty word to people outside the mainstream, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place where any unverified claim is to be repeated. For example, WP has articles about various alternative healing techniques. Just because somebody, somewhere wrote in a popular magazine that a certain technique "works" doesn't mean that the claim must be repeated as fact in a WP article. This particular claim by Sperry, that there is some Pentagon document written by some unnamed person which only he has seen, smells more than a little funny. Considering the source is someone with a huge axe to grind against Muslims, does not have the backing of a major media organization and does not have a reputation as an investigative journalist (except in the eyes of these creepy fringe websites who seem to adore him) I see no reason why it should be treated as anything but wild, unsustantiated rumor. --Lee Hunter 22:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

You still refuse to actually put up a source. All I see that smells funny is your lying. You're the one being undocumented, and i don't think you have any intention of showing any evidence in good faith. "Go look for yourself" is not valid by policy. And trying to paint real journalists by making unrelated analogies doesn't work either. ApeAndPig

I'm afraid I don't understand what you're looking for. A source for what exactly? A source for my assertion that he's a bigoted nutjob? That's only my opinion (and the opinion of a number of people on Amazon who've read his book) but it's pretty much self-evident from his writings. I don't have access to his psychiatric records, if that's what you mean. --Lee Hunter 01:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Unprotecting

2 weeks sine any discussion here. will try unprotection. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Ban one side of an argument by racist admin and you get no discussion because the islamist editors feel they "won".

Merge

The concept & discussion in Islamism , Militant Islam & Islamist terrorism is a lot similar .See Zionism & Zionist terrorism for an example . So Militant Islam & Islamist terrorism should be merged . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 20:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes they should be merged. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay merge.

I agree that Militant Islam and Islamist terrorism should be merged. Yuber^(talk) 21:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The merge seems like a cover-up to me. NO. Zora 21:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Well apart from what it seems , I dont see any reason for havng both militant & terrorism article , b/c both things are (wrongly)considered to be the same in the context of Islam . I dont think there is a possibility of having a Legitimate militant Islam article , so whats the difference b/w these two. To me , both concepts seem to be the same . Am I missing anything here . Also I dont see the reason behind what it seems . We dont have Militant Zionism & Zionist terrorism articles , or Militant Americans & American Terrorism articles , Why not the same things be followed here . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال /c} 21:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

What is being covered up? How can something fall under "Militant Islam" but not under "Islamist terrorism"? Do people who use both words really differentiate between the two?Yuber^(talk) 21:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The merge seems a very sensible and obvious thing to do to me. --Victim of signature fascism 21:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, Hezbollah and the Iranian revolution seem obvious examples of what could uncontroversially be categorised as militant Islam, but not as Islamist terrorism. Some of the Afghan mujahedin organisations equally. Militancy isn't the same as terrorism, as any dictionary will show. Personally, I'm strongly opposed to politically discriminatory use of the word "terrorism" to mean only violence by non-state actors, but hijacking the word "militancy" to serve the same purpose doesn't seem an improvement. Palmiro | Talk 22:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The words "militancy" and "terrorism" are not interchangeable. One could say that all terrorists are militant but not all militants are terrorists. Having said that, I don't think this "Islamist terrorism" article is particularly useful because it throws a huge grab bag of mostly unrelated incidents and movements into a big pot and slaps on a label of "Islamist terrorism". This article is more about how Islamist terrorism is seen in the west than about Islamist terrorism itself. I don't even think one can make a coherent article with this title. It makes more sense to address each conflict separately. --Lee Hunter 22:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

This is the intro of the Militant Islam article Militant Islam is a contentious term, often used by Western political commentators to describe the ideologies of groups viewed as participating in Islamist terrorism. I don't see any difference between the two concepts. Although I agree with Palmiro that Hezbollah can be classified as militant Islam and not Islamist terrorism, I don't know of any sources that we could use for that point of view. Yuber^(talk) 23:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

How about the European Union, which very carefully refrains from categorising the Hizb as a terrorist organisation? Palmiro | Talk 23:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Typical coverup crap and they only bother to discuss it AFTER their phony merge listing was removed for their lack of bothering to discuss.