Talk:Jihad/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions about Jihad. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

→

Jihad and Israel Etymology

I would like to better understand the concept of Jihad. Some things I have read would suggest that it is more of an internal struggle that is described by the use of the term.

I am curious to know if this is comparable to the struggle or wrestle that Jacob had before his name was changed to Israel. I believe that the name Israel in the Hebrew language means "One who has struggled with God". Could Jacob's experience therefore be called Jihad? I would be greatful if someone would explain how the two ideas are or are not related. Also, if there is a connection, should this idea be discussed within this article? Utestudent 00:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I cannot speak to the concept of Jihad as you request here, but I believe the name "Israel" in Hebrew translates to "a prince with God," not "One who has struggled with God." Apathos1 18:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The two ideas do not seem related. To my knowledge, jihad never refers to a struggle with God in the Qur'an or Hadith (in fact, I've never come across the idea). One who struggles with God is clearly not submitting, for instance, and jihad cannot really be taken up by an infidel. Jihad, and its variants, refer either to a struggle with an enemy, one's self in some way, or something abstract. Contemporary interpretations often prefer to blend these. Regardless, this is a very distinct difference between Islam and Judaism, particularly in their modern forms. --Vector4F 00:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Jihad as "path"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060524/wl_mideast_afp/mideastpalestinianunrestfatahhamas - what does Jihad means in this context ?

Zeq 16:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

What is jihad.com?

I just want to know, if anyone knows, what happens or what is on jihad.com? I sure as hell don't want to go on it, but.. I'd just like to know. Thanks. 210.50.189.73 05:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Disputed Section

In the disputed section of the article is states that Muslims who follow the Hanafi school of thought are unlikely to pay attention to scholars of other schools of thought, this is completely inaccurate, so I'm going to go ahead and delete it and remove the controversy tag. There's a few spelling and grammar mistakes here and there which I am going to correct. M2k41 15:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

I have removed the section "Analysis of Islamic invasion of America" - this is an encyclodaedia, not a sounding board for Islamophobic conspiracy theories. --The Thieving Gypsy 21:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

My apologies if this is not the right place to note this, but I'm a wiki-newbie. I think the section beginning with "Muslim scholars explained there are five kinds of jihad fi sabilillah (struggle in the cause of God):[1]" has been vandalized. There are now seven kinds of jihad listed, and I strongly suspect the 6th and especially 7th are... not accurate. But I didn't know how to tell anyone other than posting in here. Thanks.

encyclopedic or no ?

Critics of Jihad

--87.64.2.247 23:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Not really. Many people have discussed jihad in a critical manner... different aspects and different definitions. This adds very little to understanding of what jihad is. gren グレン 04:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Quran Quotes vs Talmudic Quotes

From thwe Talmud articlwe, add one here to keep both articles balanced. Just replace Judaism with islam in the following passage:

By selectively citing various passages from the Talmud and Midrash, polemicists have sought to demonstrate that Judaism espouses hatred for non-Jews (and specifically for Christians), and promotes obscenity, sexual perversion, and other immoral behavior. To make these passages serve their purposes, these polemicists frequently mistranslate them or cite them out of context (wholesale fabrication of passages is not unknown)... In distorting the normative meanings of rabbinic texts, anti-Talmud writers frequently remove passages from their textual and historical contexts. Even when they present their citations accurately, they judge the passages based on contemporary moral standards, ignoring the fact that the majority of these passages were composed close to two thousand years ago by people living in cultures radically different from our own. They are thus able to ignore Judaism's long history of social progress and paint it instead as a primitive and parochial religion. Those who attack the Talmud frequently cite ancient rabbinic sources without noting subsequent developments in Jewish thought, and without making a good-faith effort to consult with contemporary Jewish authorities who can explain the role of these sources in normative Jewish thought and practice.

That's definitely true to some extent... but... well, Islam/Judaism isn't good... or bad... and that's what I see as the problem. It's obviously not simple to convert 1400 years of Islamic law into a few pages on Wikipedia representing "what is Islam" but... the goal is to try. If Islamic has traditionally said that thieves must be killed then we report the rulings... we report how / if they were carried out and the social circumstances of the time. They social circumstances are not justifications because there is no justification. Killing is only good or bad in terms of what the reader thinks and it should be written in a way that your reaction reflects what you believe to be the moral right to the situation. This is obviously vague and I don't think people will agree on this standard but this is what we should be trying for. gren グレン 10:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Bald, context-free, mostly irrelevant list of quotes

What is the consensus on these? Many (most?) have absolutely no connection to jihad. Is it the same person who keeps putting these back in? If so, what's the reasoning and how do other editors feel about them? BYT 20:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

All these quotes are about jihad. However, they overburden the article, and I'd prefer transwikiing most, if not all, of them to Wikiquote. Pecher ^Talk 21:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Took them out. Maybe they do belong at Wikiquote, I don't know. People who want to put them back in here should make a case here for doing so and attain consensus of editors. BYT 10:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't care what jihad meant in 1126 as much as I care what it means in 2006. For instance, the current article lends me little aid in understanding the new Palestinian group "Holy Jihad Brigades" 72.70.19.206 21:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The term "jihad" is often simplistically reduced in western languages and non-Islamic cultures as generally "holy war", but this "physical" struggle, which encompasses religion, only makes up part of the broader meaning of the concept of jihad. -----

Why is physical in scare quotes? Is it truly not physical? Is it extracted from a quotation? Please explain and justify

Eschatology

This part contains of some ayats of Quran. But there are some problems. First, There are too many ayats in Qur'an which talk about Jihad but in different meanings. So which one of them should put in the article? Second, It seems somebody chose the ayats which use Jihad as warfare and arranged it so readers think Jihad=Offensive warfare. Third I think putting ayats whithout any comments in the article isn't appropriate.--Sa.vakilian 19:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to put the verses of Qur'an and hadith in a sensible way. So that people can understand properly. Otherwise, random verses can be meaningless or even deceiving. Kindly look at User:Truthspreader/Jihad. TruthSpreader^Talk 02:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Weak structure

The structure of this article is week. Jihad#Permission for Jihad according to Islamic jurists should write after Jihad#Jihad as warfare .--Sa.vakilian 19:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we will need to remove some of the scholars opinions to reduce the article size. TruthSpreader^Talk 02:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I propose moning them to a new article. for example:Jihad in Islamic Theology.--Sa.vakilian 07:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

There are books on Jihad, it is a very big topic. I couldn't make it smaller than that. TruthSpreader^Talk 06:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

We can move some details about Jihad#Jihad as warfare to Defensive Jihad and Offensive Jihad. --Sa.vakilian 07:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I have a serious problem with these two categories. As if Islam allow Jihad against oppression, it can be offensive as well as defensive, depending on the situation. Secondly, I believe that Jihad pertaining to companions of prophet definitely needed some extra details. But I agree with you that article is now too long. TruthSpreader^Talk 07:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This category is derived from Sharia. Also there is another article for the prophet's battle: Ghazw.--Sa.vakilian 10:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

hmm...The only section that will shrink would be Supremecy of Islam in Arabian peninsula, which I think is very essential to the understanding of the whole concept of Jihad otherwise, everyday, we will find someone adding verses of Jihad to this article out of context. What is important is that verses of Qur'an and hadith should be learned in the context. Other sections might also get trimmed, but we will be sacrificing information for space. TruthSpreader^Talk 11:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I think Jihad is such an important article and part of the religion, that it deserves this much lenght. TruthSpreader^Talk 12:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

There are articles with more than 100 kb length. The problem is too many details in the main article. I propose to move details to other articles. Also I propose Jihad in Islamic theology for the quotations. What is your idea.--Sa.vakilian 13:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't you think that Jihad is an Islamic term, hence Jihad in Islamic theology would mean the same thing. Even if we make a new article, at some point in future, somebody may ask to merge these articles again. TruthSpreader^Talk 14:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you prefer? Which name sounds good for quotations?--Sa.vakilian 18:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

What about "Opinion of Islamic scholars on Jihad"? TruthSpreader^Talk 00:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you.--Sa.vakilian 04:38, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello editors! Let me please intervene here and tell you that I am in User:Sa.vakilian's first opinion to create a new page for this article entitled Jihad in Islamic theology. For in Islam, this is indeed a big of a subject, that could easily compare to the Resurrection of Jesus in the Christianity for instance! At the same time, I don't think that the word Jihad is a Muslim term. It is an Arabic term and the debate (as well as the article) should start from there. And as it is right now, it is not the case at all. Jihad is an Arabic word, and like many other words, is used by a religion that saw the light within the context of the Arab Peninsula. Many Arabs who are non-Muslims are called Jihad! And this article does them no good when the eye of the less-informed reader starts by reading that this word is purely Muslim. I strongly believe that the English translation of the Muslim term Jihad should be the Islamic Jihad, and I hope I gave you enough simple and straight to the point arguments to back up this belief. Thank you. --Jixavius ^@ 19:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

"Jihad of peace" arabic translation missing

I assume that there is an arabic word for peace? If so, we should include it like we did with "jihad bis saif" for "Jihad of the sword".

I haven't heared "Jihad of peace". There is contract between Muslims and Nonmuslims who aren't enemy of Islam. You can see it in At-Tawba (Surah no.9)--Sa.vakilian 04:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

According to the article, "Muslim scholars explained there are five kinds of jihad fi sabilillah (struggle in the cause of God):[1]" and "Jihad of peace" is the sixth listed here. I suspect vandalism and am removing that segment.

"Western confusion"

There's a phrase in the article that states:

"Many in the west are confused about the meaning of jihad, the West thinks that it means ``holy war´´ when it realy means struggle on any level whether its personal, spirutual or political."

This is clearly not neutral, and not backed up with any facts. What exactly is 'the West' and when even radical Muslims use the term 'jihad' to refer to armed struggle in the cause of Islam, who's to say that the West is mistaken? I would edit it, or simply remove it, but maybe something more constructive could be done with it. 212.100.3.56 11:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I replaced it with:"Some of non-Muslims are confused about the meaning of jihad. They think it means ``holy war´´ when it realy means struggle on any level whether its spirutual , political , martial and so on for example there is scientific endevours in Iran which recognized as "UNIVERSITY JIHAD".. ". I hope it satisfies you.--Sa.vakilian 02:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Sites discussing Jihad

The link "Jihad a Misunderstood Concept (Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement belief)," currently listed as a Non-Muslim Site discussing Jihad, should be moved to "Islamic sites.." It is very obviously an Islamic site. Achnash 02:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It was probably moved by someone, because a vast majority of Muslims regard the Ahmadiyya as distinct and seperate faith much like the Baha'i.--Tigeroo 13:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Apologetics part of Jihad?--Tigeroo?

Is apologetics --or if you like, "arguing through writing or speech in defense or favour of something" -- not a part of Jihad? Achnash 12:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It's all part of the concept of using communication as agent in the struggle to affect a change. apologetics is too limiting a conception and not singled or even mentioned explicitly except by analogy as an extention of the general oral/ written modes of communication, plus the ambiguity created by a differing modern usage of the term makes it a loaded phrase. There are as many ways of accomplishing these particular modes of jihad as there are modes of communication, merely expressing your disapproval or disagreement with what you beleive to be false or wrong is jihad. While the best mode of action is ofcourse an activist one, if your situation is such that public/ private expression is not advisable even personally acknowledging it as such is jihad.--Tigeroo 13:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Jihad in Ummayad caliphate

I cannot find anything here about the concept and practice of jihad during the Ummayad caliphate, particularly as regards the expansion of the caliphate and Islam into Africa, Asia, and Europe. This seems important. Badagnani 07:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

After prophet Muhammad, many legitimized their warfare by saying that it is Jihad, but if Ummayad claimed that there warfare was Jihad, then it can be discussed under Warfare in Muslim societies. TruthSpreader^Talk 09:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I know that some of the Muslims don't recognize their wars as Jihad.--Sa.vakilian 03:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Jihad =/= Qital

Most of the article describes Qital, that is a part of Jihad, not the whole of Jihad . The article should also describe various other kinds of Jihad too . F.a.y.^{تبادله خيال} ^{^/c} 09:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Qur'an discusses Qital in great detail, that can be said because that is associated with the concept of Messengerhood (see Itmam al-hujjah for details) but this Jihad is the primary Jihad. Other kinds of Jihad are more or less inspired by a few hadith only. TruthSpreader^Talk 09:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Opinions of scholars on Jihad

As the article became too much cluttered, kindly add opinions of scholars to Opinion of Islamic scholars on Jihad. TruthSpreader^Talk 01:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Simplification

I use wikipedia lots in my assignment and research, and this is by far the worse page i've seen. Its got pages and pages worth of endless quotes, and have of them are meaningless. I mean, shouldn't an article in wikipedia should be neutral, simple and easy to read? Being neutral here, the first time I read this (and now still) I have no definate clear definition of was Jihad actually is. It just goes on and on about things that is really irrelavant. I mean, all I wanted to know is, "what is jihad" "how does it affect the islamic society". But nooo, it just goes rambo about quotes in the Qur'an.

Agree. This is such a long document as well. Can it be broken up or summarized?

Mate! you are not signing up your comments. Jihad is a complicated issue. Different people have different opinions. It is already summarized in the Lead paragraph and then subsequently in "Greater and lesser Jihad". More information regarding Jihad as warfare can be found in subsequent section. If you can tell us precisely, what kind of problem you see in the article, that'll be helpful. Other sections, which are related to this article are:Defensive Jihad, Offensive Jihad, Muhammad as a general, Itmam al-hujjah. TruthSpreader^Talk 05:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Recent additons

Many people added recently to this article, which is purely Original research as there are no sources. I think we should remove all this information and also section on "Modern day Jihadists". TruthSpreader^Talk 06:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I'll start cleaning this article after a few days, as it is getting out of hand. It is in vilation of WP:LEAD. TruthSpreader^Talk 01:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably vandalism

Awfully provocatively worded, at least.

"Jihad of the heart/soul (jihad bin nafs/qalb) is an inner struggle of good against evil in the mind, through concepts such as tawhid. This is often invoked by Western scholars sympathetic to anti-Americanism and anti-globalisation who dare not whisper the truth about Islam's proactive bloody origins and trajectory, halted in 1923 when the Ottoman Empire, the last Muslim caliphate, was abandoned by Attaturk."

I know nothing about the subject so I can't fix it myself. Anybody?

(and Atat[u/ü]rk is misspelt) 71.126.133.50 10:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

contradiction

There is a contradiction in saying of Ibn Qayyim. One says that he was against spiritual Jihad hadith and one is in favour. Which one is correct? TruthSpreader^Talk 17:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Very POV

I have numerous objections to this article, as it blatantly expresses some opinions:

In the introductory paragraph, the article reads "Despite the fact that Jihad is not supposed to include aggressive warfare, this has occurred, as exemplified by early extremists like Kharijites...".
1. In the eyes of whoever composed this paragraph, Jihad isn't supposed to include aggressive warfare. But that's his point of view. Very many Muslims believe that Jihad is a physical (often lethal) struggle with someone else. Wikipedia defines [NPOV] as follows: "This policy says that we accept all the significant viewpoints on an issue. Instead of simply stating one perspective, we try to present all relevant viewpoints without judging them." I think it is clear beyond a doubt that the view of Jihad as aggressive is a "significant" and "relevant" viewpoint in the Muslim community, including the Muslim scholars cited in the next section, and the prophet Muhammed (as later cited in the article). Saying that a very large group of individuals who use Jihad to mean "Holy War" (including many Muslim leaders and the founder of the religion) have perverted the concept is judging them.
2. Also, classifying individuals who engage in the physical mannifestation of Jihad as "extremists" is explicitely showing POV. It is likely that these individuals are not in agreement with most Muslims (a fact which cannot be confirmed for certain). But they are very mainstream within the Jihaddist community. The term "extremist" is subjective and far from neutral.
"Polytheists of Arabia were asked for submission." When the choice is submission or death, it isn't called asking. Muhammed threatened extensive violence against local populations. One that comes to mind is Banu Qurayza. Clearly, then (if we accept the terminology of this article), Muhammed was an extremist Muslim. I favor changing the wording to "submission was demanded of the polytheists of Arabia..." or--for those who like the active voice--"Muhammed demanded submission of the polytheists of Arabia..."
"Islamic scholars have different opinions on Jihad, however, there is a consensus that armed struggle against persecution and oppression will always continue." This sentence all but implies that this is the correct definition of Jihad: that it is only used against persecution and oppression. There is a "significant viewpoint" to the contrary, and so I think it is only right that that viewpoint be incorporated. The following sentence may be a good option: "Islamic scholars have different opinions on Jihad, however, there is a consensus that armed struggle in the name of God [or Allah, whichever you prefer] will continue."
The second paragraph in "Jihad as Warfare" refers to the Muslim religion as "the truth" five times. Is there anything more POV than calling a set of opinions "the truth"?
The term "disbeliever" is used to describe a non-Muslim in the "Ethical Limits" section, and the term "non-believer" is used in the "Warfare in Muslim Societies" section. Again, this implies anyone who is not a Muslim is wrong. That's POV.
Non-Muslim definitions of Jihad are at the very end. Don't definitions usually go at the beginning? This is probably unintentional. However, to make the article NPOV, a "relevant opinion" running contrary to another must not remain burried far at the bottom of the article, when all information of its kind is typically placed at the top.I think it would be a good idea to put these definitions immediately after "Classifications of Jihad by Muslims." I won't do this yet, since I want to see some responses before I make an edit.

I m dude2002 03:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for you analysis. You definitely have raised some valid points. Although the text under discussion is sourced but still I would like to discuss these points:

Jihad is essentially (for most part of Qur'an and Islamic jurisprudence) an armed struggle. This doesn't mean that it is supposed to be aggressive e.g. helping the oppressed one. Secondly, the opinion that "armed struggle against oppression will continue" is common to all the scholars. This is why it is presented this way. Although, I wouldn't disagree with you that even such ventures would also be done in the name of God, just like Muslims don't kill animals in vain but slaughter them in the name of God (i.e. taking life of someone is allowed in Islam only for a just cause which is permitted by God).
The word "disbeliever" or "nonbeliever" is essentially used to describe those people who denied Muhammad in his lifetime (you might also had a feeling that article actually quotes alot of quranic verses chronologically, as every directive of Jihad has an associated event). Now the point is that these verses when came had a specific purpose to deal with specific people. How to describe such case. Non-Muslim is a very generic term and may include anyone. Just like Qur'an says that all polytheists at sight should be killed, doesn't mean that this command is for all polytheists rather Qur'an from its very structure shows that it was addressing to particular people, and this is why Muslims even ruled for example, Hindus in India, and this command has never being used. If you can come up with better wording, that'll be great.
You said, "Muslim religion as "the truth"" is POV. I also believe that it is a very Islamic POV, just like the term "nonbeliever". If such statement can be incorported with something which is more NPOV would be better without losing the focus on the fact that these people were persecuted, who were considered disbelievers or infidels by the Qur'an.

Cheers! TruthSpreader^reply 04:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I have reworded the initial paragraph to address some of the issues above, plus mentioned the use of the term jihad to justify sectarian violence. Hopefully that will address some of the concerns. --Petercorless 05:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure Truthspreader's recent revision is precisely "better". He cut out a lot of what was already in there. --Petercorless 05:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You are most welcome to include the information from previous version. I just tried to use Encyclopedia of Islam, which is a prestigious scholarly source. But like any other scholarly source, it also has a POV. TruthSpreader^reply 05:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. The main thing I had wished to keep was that, like it or not, people use the term "jihad" to justify the killing of Muslims and non-Muslims alike. It becomes a way to alienate, repudiate and identify those who one holds as a heretic or enemy. The justification or validation of such a use can be taken up in the article below. The main thing to identify in the lead is to note that it is used thusly, whether we agree with the validity of that use or not. --Petercorless 05:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I changed the first sentence of the second paragraph (dealing with jihad as "Holy War") to read as follows: "The word 'jihad' is often translated as 'Holy War,' although many (if not most) Muslims disagree with this definition." I think this is much more NPOV. If anyone disagrees, I will gladly change it again. I m dude2002 21:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

To make an assertion of many (or most) or any other quantification, cite a poll other form of quantifiable statistic from a reliable book or web reference. Otherwise, this is just an opinion. I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I'm saying, please back up your assertion with a cited figure. --Petercorless 22:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the links (though you should probably make them more proper citations. I removed the third one you added because in the text, it literally said "Jihad - Holy War" which ipso facto refutes the point you were trying to make, not support it. I took that out. --Petercorless 23:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Ghamidi

For the first 1300 years of Islam, jihad was understood to be a war ~~to spread~~ to spread or defend the Islamic state. Now we're beginning our analysis with Ghamidi, a revisionist who is in no way in the mainstream. All his arguments are extremely hollow rationalizations, but the main point here is that his is not the majority view. Arrow740 16:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not only to spread state but to defend it also. This article needs rewrite. --- ALM 16:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Jihad is a concept that has been used by many groups at different times differently. Kharijites used it to legitimitize their aggression. Ibn Taymiyya used Jihad against converted Mongols, declaring them Kharijites and thus apostates (which I don't know if he did right or wrong). What Ghamidi has purported is nothing more than a contextual interpretation of Qur'an and hadith. These arguments are the same which every Muslim believes in his heart that why sword was used by the prophet. All the related concepts to Jihad, like Khilafat are coming from opinion of scholars, and not from Qur'an. For early Muslim society, Khilafat was the only possible way to run a government in a tribal society, later scholars opined that this is the only way to rule. Similarly, Muslims decided very early in about 700 CE that verses like ^{[Quran 9:29]} were only for the companions of the prophet. Hence, they stopped killing polytheists by law. But later scholars approximated the concept of Dhimmi to all people (one part of the whole command in the verse). A funny example is of hindus, who are by no stretch of thought "People of the Book", as they were purely living in polytheistic society, unlike Christians who were atleast subscribing to monotheism but were actually henotheistic. They were also treated like Dhimmis as per ^{[Quran 9:29]}. If these scholars were really after implementing this verse, a proper implementation of this verse would have killed all hindus, but this whole scenario shows that scholars at that time were approximating ideas according to their understanding, rather than implementing it as it should be.

But this article, as I felt, should deal with Qur'an and only authentic and Mutawatir hadith, being a contentious article. But still I think, only first section of Jihad as warfare might be contentious, even that presents opinion of opposite party as well. But other suggestions are also welcome. TruthSpreader^reply 01:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we are monotheists. Maybe you should try to understand our beliefs a little better before making judgments as if you know better than us. Hindus theoretically seem to be monotheists these days too. KittyHawker 20:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Opinions

The opinion section does not belong in an encyclopedia; in addition this article is very POV. What the Koran says is important because it is the basis for jihad. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.182.27.181 (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Please provide the context for this: Ibn Athir further adds:[20]

   * Wrong no one and exercise no torture.
   * Do not touch the children, women and the old.
   * Do not destroy fruit-trees and fertile lands.
   * Do not kill sheep and cattle.
   * Respect all religious persons who live in hermitages or convents and spare their edifices.

We all know by now about slavery and concubinage in jihad. KittyHawker 20:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I removed lots of OR. I removed a couple sourced statements on accident, and I'll put them back in. KittyHawker 20:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Your defintion of OR is untrue. --Aminz 21:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Cherry-picking from primary literature and giving your spin on it is OR. KittyHawker 22:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

All I can see is wholesale removal of sourced material on the basis of OR. Please discuss points one by one on the talk page. --Aminz 02:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

merge

article should be merged with Five Pillars of Islam article

Why it is not one of the five pillars? --- ALM 15:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

it is often referred to as the sixth pillar

maybe it should be merged here: Wikipedia:Five_pillars - after all it that article as well there is nothing about "holy war".... Zeq 18:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes I completely agree with the idea of merging this article with the WP:Five Pillars of Islam! I have in different ways tried to draw everybody's attention to the fact that Jihad is not by itself a Muslim term! :o) Let me elaborate: the word jihad had already existed in the Arabic language before Islam saw the light in the 7th century CE. It was only later that it was used in the Religious context of Islam, for whatever reason and explanation you want, and evolved with time to carry within its use all the different nuances of this term. But the way this article exists here, it is a de facto implication that Jihad is nothing BUT a Muslim term. It is not the case, I am sorry to tell you. I am Lebanese and so many non Muslim Lebanese are called Jihad, because it is not considered the same thing as Islamic Jihad, and let me point out in passing that Lebanon's population consists of only 60% Muslim people. And so, the way this article starts right away by categorizing Jihad as an Islamic term hurts those whose name is Jihad, let alone if their name is Jihad and they are not Muslim... and you don't want to know the fiasco they live in when they apply for visas or meet less-informed foreigners who ask them if their name implies they will "blow themselves and suicide later on?" (and these are real life episodes ladies and gentlemen). So my suggestion is simple and it is the following:

Move this rich-content-article to the Five Pillars of Islam or to an article entitled Jihad in Islam
Let the Jihad article point out to the current article Jihad (disambiguition), where the definition of the term is more tolerant and much more general, as should be the case in an encyclopedia!

Thank you for sharing your opinions with me --Jixavius ^@ 20:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes I think it is good idea to change the name to Jihad in Islam. Can we have a voting and invite Muslim users around to give their opinions too. --- S&T 17:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Voting: Change name to "Islamic Jihad" or "Jihad in Islam"

Per above comments by User:Jixavius I suggest we change the name to Islamic Jihad. Please vote yes if you agree and no if you disagree. --- S&T 17:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes --- S&T 17:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes (for all the reasons I mentioned above..) --Jixavius ^@ 17:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
No - If there were historical antecedents to the use of the term jihad, or the etymological use of the roots of the word prior to the advent of Islam, those can be cited in the article. There is no reason we need to move the article. --Petercorless 19:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Besides which, Islamic Jihad is the name of a specific political group. --Petercorless 19:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Note to Peter: I believe if you consider your idea very carefully, you will notice it is not free of contradiction; I mean we either want to a) tell the readers jihad is an Islamic term and voilà! or b) we want to tell them this word has many meanings depending on the context... and, for instance, for the Islamic meaning of the word, see Jihad in Islam--and I believe the Jihad (disambiguation) is painfully trying to fix this unilateral definition while it should be done directly on this page. So which approach do you rather suggest exactly? --Jixavius ^@ 01:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

No. Encarta considers "Jihad" to be an Islamic term[1]. Also, then we would have to create Islamic Jihad (disambiguation), per Petercorless.Bless sins 20:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Bless_sins, but I don't understand why you feel there's a need for a disambiguation page for Jihad in Islam. I mean isn't an article Jihad in Islam supposed to include all possible nuances/meanings/interpretations of this term in the religion of Islam? As to the Encarta definition, I think that for an originally Arabic term, we'd better go back to the source and look up the word in an Arabic Encyclopedia ;-) Try that and see what you get. --Jixavius ^@ 01:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

"Jihad in Islam" is acceptable, not Islamic Jihad (look it up). Encarta best matches wikipedia, as both are open to all content. "Arabic Encyclopedia" is going to present a view centered on Arabia, something wikipedia doesn't promote. I could say the same thing to you: look up "Jihad" in "Encyclopedia of Islam". But I won't. Encarta, Britannica, and other encyclopediae open to all subjects, should be considered as an example.Bless sins 02:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment From my experience, the way wikipedia deals with this issues in many articles is to provide an explanation at the top of the article: Something like This article is about the concept of Jihad in Islam, for other uses (e.g. among Lebaneese Arabs) see Jihad(disam..)--Aminz 22:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Very good suggestion Aminz; I think it is better to start the article like this at least if the majority does not agree to move the article. Again, for those who insist that Jihad is but a Muslim term, I can easily disprove them. Email me, and I will give you the coordinates of tens of Christian Lebanese whose names are Jihad. Sorry folks, but for non Lebanese (and non-Arabs in general), you will just have to deal with this simple fact about our culture and take the time to educate yourself about the subject--actually, you can understand what I mean in the Jihad (disambiguation) page. To state that this word is purely Islamic WILL do harm to those who have some ties to this term (be it their name or other tie) and would be otherwise a destructive reduction to the many different meanings that this highly context-sensitive word could take. You gotta trust me on this one :-) Let me add to the non Arabic speaking editors, you have to be aware of a very important property of the Arabic language: words are highly context-sensitive meaning-wise, and similarly, one object/idea can have many words to reference it (words like 'lion' and 'sword' have each more than 400 synonyms in Arabic)... Salam! --Jixavius ^@ 01:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

- You cannot use personal knowledge as original research, but if you can cite published sources for your information, it might be a worthwhile note. Yet proof of an exception does not allow for a negation of the general case. --Petercorless 04:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I would support adding this clarification note at the top of the page, with the link to the disambiguation page. Also, please note that what Jixavius is talking about isn't purely original research per se. To help clarify his point, the word Jihad is the Arabic word most closely translated to English as "struggle". It is often used in Western media more like the English word "crusade" or "holy war", but it literally means "struggle". However, I do agree that it is most commonly used in English in reference to the Islamic "holy war", which is why I generally disagree with the nomination to move this page. — George Saliba^[talk] 02:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Strong No. "Jihad" is an Islamic term... except when, and I use this for an example only, a very small minority of non-moslems are sometimes called Jihad because of their family pro-palestinian, anti-West, Socialist, or even leftist or communist political affiliations. It is like saying "Allahou Akbar الله أَكبَر = God is Great" is not an Islamic term because some arab christians are also able to use it in their everyday life and some do... God being great is something all of God's religions agree upon but Allahou Akbar, like Jihad, is definitely an Islamic term. Khaled. Worldedixor 02:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Strong No: Whats next? "Allah in Islam" ? "Muhammed in Islam"? --Matt57 04:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see Jihad El Murr 's description of HIS name (Jihad) on his website [www.xdu.com]. And since you insist, I am going to have to throw in this piece of info (especially for those remotely connected to the Lebanese culture): I come from an ancient family of Christian Maronites (which have allegedly hated all other confessions in Lebanon (?)[2] and still, my grandfather decided I should be called Jihad, for a very personal matter relevant to his life and that of his son (my father). Now does that make us pro-Islam or Palestinian or anti-Western (knowing that I hav e a lot of family in the States) or leftist of whatever? :) I highly dispute these weak-founded allegations. On the other hand, in case you are not quite familiar with the Arabic language, the Arabic translation of the word God is "Allah"... so you guess what the Christians of the east call the "Elohim" (God, in Hebrew) ;-) Peace. PS: is a strong NO better than a NO in a vote... maybe I should have said double YES on the rocks! :D --Jixavius ^@ 12:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The DisAm notice now put seems appropriate now. 99% of the usage of this word is as in Islam. This is ok now. --Matt57 18:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you would just see Jihad on Wikitionary [3], you'd understand why I was strongly supporting a title change for this article, which for the time being showcases a near-biased understanding of this term. --Jixavius ^@ 23:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I will like to support your good intension. Wassalam. --- ALM 23:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No: This is a matter of Wikipedia policy more than which name is more accurate. I fully understand that there are both Muslims and non-Muslims with the name Jihad (and I know both Muslims and non-Muslims with the name), and the word is used in Arabic to generally denote "struggle" – not just an Islamic holy war. However, per Wikipedia naming conventions:
When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine? ... Titles should be as simple as possible without being too general. For example, the page about jazz should simply be called "Jazz", not "Jazz music", because "jazz" refers in almost any context to a genre of music, and the simpler title makes linking easier. Adding the word "music" is redundant.
In this case, despite the word Jihad having other meanings, when used by itself it is used in almost every context in reference to the Islamic crusade, rather than any specific individual named Jihad (which would have their own articles, such as Jihad el-Murr, etc.). If the average person was looking for this in a search engine, they would enter "Jihad", not "Islamic Jihad" or "Jihad in Islam", and if a user were to type just the word "Jihad" in a search engine, they would almost always be looking for the Islamic holy war, rather than a particular person. Furthermore, there is the large issue that there is already an article about Islamic Jihad, which deals with the Islamist groups that use that as their name. Again, if an average person was entering "Islamic Jihad" into a search box, I'm fairly certain they would be searching for one of these groups, rather than the more generic Islamic holy war. Now, Jihad in Islam would be a viable alternative, if someone can compile a list of other articles that begin with the term Jihad to show that there really is the need to have Jihad link straight to the disambiguation page, rather than the most common use of the word. — George Saliba^[talk] 02:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

I will be cleaning up the "Ethical limits" section. If you see removal of sourced content, don't panic, I'm just moving it to the main article.Bless sins 20:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

If I make a mistake, please leave a message here or on my talk.Bless sins 20:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Suicide bombers

How can this article not contain the word "suicide"? 83.67.217.254 09:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC) (That's what most westerners associate to the concept of Jihad, like it or not.) 83.67.217.254 09:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article in too narrowly focused on one pov regarding Jihad. Still it is perhaps the best written article and it shows scholarship. Jihad is as described, but is far broader than is covered. There are violent sects who would teach Jihad very differently. I believe that their views (pov) should be added, preferably in the same style. Raggz 07:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The article does not contain the word "suicide" because it doesn't have much to do with Islamic Jihat. There are still discussions about whether suicide bombers are really doing jihat. I believe they are not because suicide is prohibitted in Islam.Thelorien 17:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

amazing benefit

Anyone who reads the lead is sure to get a lot out of it. Lets' say some read this article: [4] and stumble upon this:

"Jihad is much broader than any one nation, or even several nations. It is broader than the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, or that between the Israelis and the Palestinians," he wrote, in an article for the Foreign Affairs journal"

going to wkipedia to look for Jihad he finds this article. would this article help him understand what was written above ?

I don't think so because this article is "owned" by one specific POV. sorry there is more than one POV here: There is the Suni POV and the Shia POV. How about the west view of "Jihad" - Does the west have no say in how it understand the concept of Jihad ? many in the west afraid of it - should it be mentioned inn the lead ?

Zeq 18:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Lead is missing something

anyone that arrive here and read the lead knows nothing about any of the tarnslations of Jihad. The lead should stand on it's own. terms like inner strugle holywar should be in the lead. Zeq 09:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Lead should include

more than one translation of the word "jihad". It is inner strugle and holy war and more. Zeq 13:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I wonder why there is no discussion about this. I am polite. I placed 3-4 coments about the lead. I am sure that if I 'll change the artickle itself many would jump and revert so to avoid this please speak now. Zeq 13:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

it would be a good idea to suggest the precise changes you are to make to see what others think about them. ITAQALLAH 17:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Capitalisation?

I notice that the word "jihad" is spelt sometimes with an uppercase J and sometimes not throughout the article. It doesn't look very professional, and I think we should come to a conclusion about this and then implement it. Thanks. Dissimul 23:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it is annoying. My feeling is that it should be lowercase. Ysageev (talk) 05:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Jihad in Fition ?

Dune: The Butlerian Jihad ?

Other uses of the term

Should there be some discussion about the (mis-?)appropriation of the term in a usually derogatory fashion to describe those fighting for something that has nothing necessarily to do with Islam, e.g. "gay jihad"? Aleta 15:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes we could have small section near the end of article. --- A. L. M.

I wrote the following twice (OK, I've tweaked it, but still), and it was promptly reverted. May I ask why?

It should be noted that in Modern Standard Arabic, jihad is one of the correct terms for a struggle for any cause, violent or nonviolent, religious or secular (though كفاح kifāḥ is also used). For instance, Mahatma Gandhi's struggle for Indian independence would be called a "jihad" in Modern Standard Arabic (as well as many other dialects of Arabic) even though it was neither a struggle for Allah (despite religious support for it, the struggle was essentially nationalist and political) nor conducted violently; the same terminology could be applied for the fight for women's liberation.

I speak Arabic, and this I know to be true; it's common knowledge for all those who speak the language. Furthermore, I have an Arabic textbook (Al-Kitaab fii Ta^cllum al-^cArabiyya Part II, by Mahmoud Al-Batal, Abbas Al-Tonsi, and Kristen Brustad, Second Edition, 2006, Washington, DC Georgetown University Press. ISBN) which clearly states that the verb جاهَدَ ǧahada and its associated imperfective yuǧahid and verbal noun ǧihad (read: jihad) is "to struggle or exert oneself for a purpose," and goes on to use an article in which Hoda Shaarawi's work in liberating Egyptian women is described as ǧihad (it may have been in the perfective/past tense, but that's besides the point; the basic verbal noun in Arabic is NEVER far removed from its associated verbs). Lockesdonkey 03:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe if you cite the book as a reference to your paragraph, it would help. (It is always better to have a reference anyway.) Aleta 03:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Lockesdonkey 13:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

"Booty"....seriously?

Call me immature if you like, but I can't help but think that some readers of this article could misinterpret the meaning of the term where it is used twice in this article:

"Those who fight in the jihad qualify for rewards in both worlds—booty in this one, paradise in the next"

and

"...driven by the universal craving for power, prestige, and if possible booty or territory."

Slang definitions of the word, if you aren't already aware, include "the buttocks" and "a woman, considered as sexual partner or sex object." I think clarity is especially important considering popular ideas about Islamic views of polygyny, women's rights, sexual slavery, and the rewards awaiting Muslims in Jannah.

Furthermore "booty" is traditionally a nautical term when the classical definition is taken, which isn't necessarily accurate when used in the context of this article.

I think that the ease of misinterpretation as well as questionable use of "booty" potentially warrant its replacement with a more apt term, such as "plunder". How does everyone else feel about this?

-- Ioeth 20:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

that's true, there are plenty of synonyms available (spoils, plunder, and so on). ITAQALLAH 23:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Considering that Muhammad often did rape or capture women from war (e.g. in Banu Qurayza, women & children were captured and enslaved; Safiya was a captured jewish woman who Muhammad forcefully married after killing her husband), booty doesnt sound so far-fetched. In my opinion the word is clear but I wonder what opinion other people have. Also, booty is the actual word used in the hadiths bieng translated. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I do see your argument, Matt57, that the usage isn't necessarily so far-fetched. However I must make the argument that for "booty" to be used in that context doesn't fit with the formal tone of an Encyclopedia...it sounds more like a rap song. It also doesn't seem to fully encompass what the article is trying to portray (the full spoils of war, not just "treasure" captured from another ship), as the synonyms ITAQALLAH noted do, since the traditional use of the word is definitively nautical (and possibly informal as well). Can you cite the hadiths that this translation is derived from so that we can be sure that there is no alternate translation that would fit better?

-- Ioeth 15:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Finally it's official: Even muslims can't deny the butt. Vodak 20:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Civil disobedience

Jihad includes but is not limited to civil disobedience or Gandhigiri.PlusDrawn 11:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Jihad in Australia

I personally think that many people in Australia would benifit from just practicing the properties of Jihad. Many people that I see as I walk down the street will not smile at another person walking the other way, I have been taking not of this for some time, If you are one that does not make the effort to smile at another person as they are walking past you on the street, you could change and make the effort. And this would mean that you would be acting in accordance with Jihad. Jihad is a wonderful and beautiful word that relates to many beautiful actions. "To remove your self from harm" no matter how big or small, it will help your day. Jihad is for yourself only, to fight away evil spirits that are attacking your personal well being. Thinngs such as the voive that speaks to you, telling you to act in the way that you know is wrong. Jihad is for the love of yourself and the love of walking upon the path that you know to be right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.11.167.2 (talk) 05:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

CHANGE ALL OF THE WORDS "GOD" TO "ALLAH"

For religious purposes, please do not use the word God when describing an Islamic subject. The majority of the Muslim faith and even the Quran states that God is not the right term. Change every word named "God" to "Allah" please.

Why? (e.g for example, when you are talking about a Persian sabre (or scimitar) please use the word Shamshir after you have mentioned what the Shamshir is)

or like you wouldn't say king for an Egyptian pharaoh etc....

--• Storkian • 22:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this request is reasonable. "Allah" is the nearest term in Arabic (and other languages that borrowed it from Arabic) to English "God," and it is used by Arabic-speaking Jews and Christians, as well as Muslims, in that sense. So if we took the advice to change "God" to "Allah" in Islam-related articles, why not also change it for Christians and Jews who spoke Arabic?

We would be advised to also change all references to God in Martin Luther to "Gott," and so on with the other German-speaking Protestant reformers. Likewise for German Catholics and Jews. And so on for the other names for God used in other languages. Terms should be translated into English unless there is no adequate English word. "Allah" is not one of those cases. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 04:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes I fully support changing the jewish god name to Yahweh i see nothing wrong with accuratly describing how the religious context is written. this is because muslims believe in Allah which is a genderless noun unlike God which can be Godess in feminine form. Yahwey is a little more specific than allah because it "helped" the pilgrims escape from egypt. (sory about my spelling)--• Storkian • 23:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken the latest Koran translation into English (by Laleh Bakhtiar) uses the word "God" (and not "Allah"). Anyway it's Wikipedia policy to use "God". See: WP:MOSISLAM

Arabic terms should be translated into standard English wherever possible without compromising the meaning of the text. For example, "Allah" should be translated as "God"

Rune X2 00:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Storkian, there are a number of problems with that statement, but I don't think this is the place to discuss it. You have raised the same question -- twice now -- at WikiProject Islam, where there is also a link to a prior consensus on this. Please direct your remarks there instead of holding parallel discussions. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 00:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I favor god over allah. Nikkul (talk) 07:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Terrorism?

Jihad means Islamic religious war (basically), how does it fall under the category terrorism? Isn't that what a war is? Ninjas are terrorists, Bush invading Vietnam is the act of terrorism etc. i dont get why this falls under the catogery terrorism instead of war. or maybe im confused.

--• Storkian • 03:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

But it doesn't mean that, it means struggle. Saying it is "basically" religious war is incorrect.

--Nonmeculpa 20:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

When individuals kill innocent civilians in the name of god, it is called terrorism. When two national militaries fight,it is called war. Nikkul (talk) 07:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Declaring jihad

This article needs some information about who declares jihad. There have always been rogue elements (Mahdi claimants, etc.) who declare it on their own but there are also madhhabi regulations about it. Does anyone have any idea how to start this or where to integrate it? gren グレン 10:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)