Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/Militant Islam

This page is preserved as an archive of the associated article page's "votes for deletion" debate (the forerunner of articles for deletion). Please do not modify this page, nor delete it as an orphaned talk page.

Listed on VfD on September 18 2003 and not deleted

Militant Islam - 142.177.. made a page which essentially says, "militant Islam is a term which doesn't describe anything, but it can be applied to Muslims who are militant", and seems to prefer this to the term Islamism, which describes an actual concept, i.e., the slew of movements that seek to move Islam increasingly into the political sphere and fold the realm of politics and statehood entirely into Islam.

You are describing Islam itself, according to Muhammad, who absolutely opposed any separation of Islam from the state, and whose hadith mostly focused on political matters. The article Islam as a political movement deals in exhaustive depth with the way this has played out in modern politics, including so-called "Islamism", a term which means many things in many countries.

False. That is your personal opinion, and is not a fact. In fact, many Muslims would disagree with you. Please stop pretending to be a Muslim and speaking for all Muslims worlwide. RK 23:28, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I can't see any reason to support this idea, since "militant islam" seems to be a non-starter as a concept and as an article.

That is provably stupid, since 34,200 Google hits and books with this title exist.

For example, the Muslim Brotherhood is certainly not militant, but it has close ideological ties to many of the other more militant movements (like Islamic Jihad) based on the concept detailed in "Islamism".

There is no "concept" detailed there, nor should there be. If there's a "concept" that underlies this "Islamism" that is separate from or complementary to Islam itself, it should be discussed in modern Islamic philosophy, with its founder and its key assertions.

142.177 also seems to be creating many redirects to Islamism or Militant Islam as s/he feels appropriate. Finally, s/he insists that "Islamism" is a propaganda term used only in the U.S. and Israel; I have plenty of sympathetic books on my bookshelf that make use of the term and see no reason to support the idea that the term is propaganda. I find this behavior particularly vexing;

Those sympathetic books no doubt make very different claims about what this "Islamist" (not "Islamism" but "ist") kind of activism or activity is. Have you read them? Since you haven't even read Islam as a political movement, which you haven't, as it's the same text you censored when I tried to remove the USPOV from Islamism (ultimately futile, that article must be deleted and made a redirect to the new article), without reading it at all. So what you find "particularly vexing" should be of no interest to anyone.

Please stop lying. The article never pushed a USA point of view. The term is neutral, and has been used for over 20 years by European, Arab Muslim, Arab Christian, and American scholars. Your claims to the contrary are totally fictional. RK 23:28, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

142.177 has a particular history of subverting articles to his own idiosyncratic view of things (which is apparently not shared by anyone else). Graft 00:02, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

This is a lie as applied to me. It can't even be accurately applied to User:RK who seems to be User:Graft's partner in crime here, as both Likud and Project for a New American Century share their views.

- so, do you say that the concept does not exist so the article should be deleted. Or do you say the content of the article is wrong, so the article must be rewritten ? Anthère

- - The concept does not exist, as even the article admits, and so the article should be deleted. It's like having an article called militant Christianity, and listing all the Christians who have ever been violent and employed Christian rhetoric to support themselves. We could do it, but what would be the point? The only common thread is that they're militant and Christian... why not start an article on Blond Presidents? or Atheist Right-Fielders? Graft 00:38, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

- - I dunno. When I looked in google, I found 34200 hits over that term (and 426 for militant christianity). Some of the links are about a book (which exist) but other apparently are not, but rather over a concept apparently. Such as http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dianawest/dw20030804.shtml. I feel confused. Perhaps I should go back to Daniel article ... Anthère

- - - The term gets 34,200 Google hits and I wouldn't be at all surprised if someone created Blond Presidents. Angela 00:44, Sep 18, 2003 (UTC)
  - It is certainly a real term, one I have heard widely used in academia, in the media and in politics, whereas Islamism is not a term I have used much outside the US and Israel. And yes there should be an article on Militant Christianity as it too is a real term describing Christian fundamentalists who believe that they are fighting a 'war for Christ' and that violence is a necessary means in that war, in areas like abortion, homosexuality, anti-semitism, secularism, etc. I think Graft has a rather shaky understanding of international terminology in use in these areas. So no, this article should not be deleted. It is a perfectly valid widely used term which Graft obviously has not heard of, until now. FearÉIREANN 00:54, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

- - - The fact he hasn't heard of it, is quite strong evidence he doesn't know what he's talking about. - 142

- - - Yeah. Me neither. Where else could I discover this at 3am, other than on wikipedia ? ~:-) Anthère

- - - Thanks for weighing in, but contrary to what 142 is saying, i think militant Islam is probably more widely used as a propaganda term than Islamism, which -is- used outside the US and Israel, and I don't see why people keep asserting that it isn't. I am not saying that no one uses the term militant Islam, I am just saying that it does not describe a useful idea. Furthermore, much of the use seems to be due to confusion - the article Anthere cites uses it interchangably with Islamism - which it decidedly is not. There are plenty of Islamist movements that aren't militant - the Deobandis might qualify, and the Muslim Brotherhood most definitely do. Graft 01:02, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

- - Wouldn't it be better to add that to the article than here? Angela

- - - Sorry, I simply can't see the point in having a lengthy article that says, in essence, that militant Islam does not describe a coherent movement or philosophy, but that some Muslims have made use of violence throughout history. It's just talking without speaking. Graft 01:25, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

- - - Incidentally, while we're discussing propaganda terms, I find it ironic that this was begun as an attempt to escape Islamism as "propaganda", but militant Islam has been extensively popularized by the likes of Pipes. I've yet to see any defense of his (very prominent) use of the term (to smear Islamism) from either JT or 142, or an explanation of what exactly is meant by militant Islam beyond the concatenation of the two ideas encoded in each word. Graft 01:52, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

- - Militant rock, militant radicals, militant activists, militant blabla. Militant is just another buzzword jouranlists use to discredit people they don't like. Wikipeida is not a slang or idiom guide.. But I think it should be so I think this article should stay. BL 02:04, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Aside from 34200 hits that say this must stay, and Jansen's excellent book, there is also the fact that it is simply not possible to retain Islamism as describing any but a propaganda term. This term is used to jam together all people who see Islam as having a political philosophy requirement, one that must be implemented in some way in the state - which can be ALL people who accept Islam, since it has some very clear requirements in this regard (like zakat, khalifa and Islamic economics), or just anyone who wants to do this to the point of opposing the global debt system and oil imperialism, which many analysts think is a major motivator of resistance. Would we allow "Christianityism" to describe say the Christian Democrats? I think not.

The alternative title Islam as a political movement may be acceptable, however, with 34200 hits, *FAR* more than you'll find for "Islamism", it should be *here*, not there, where the issues are explained. This is hardly an objective neutrality question where the sides are defined by scholarly positions - it is a clear political dispute and is going to require more than a few google tests to come to agree on.

Sorry, I can't agree. First of all, you've still to respond to any of my points.

When I see one, I'll respond to it - 142. I wrote an entire well-researched article quoting a mix of neutral, friendly and hostile sources, which you haven't even bothered to read.

Many of us have made many points. Denying that they exist is the cyber-version of a temper tantrum. You can also deny that the Washington Monument exists, but your bizarre denial of reality doesn't actually change reality. It just convinces the rest of us that you have some serious issues.

As far as I can tell, right-wing anti-Muslim zealots seem to love the term "militant Islam". So how is it that "Islamism" is propaganda? Second of all, this article contains no useful information (other than the history imported from Islamism, and is self-contradictory to boot, by including non-militant movements like the Deobandis. The term is just a complete misapplication, because there is nothing inherently militant about Islamists.

It's quite useful to distinguish uses of a propaganda term. If you consider a group non-militant, by all means, remove them, or put them in Islam as a political movement (although that article will get huge if it has to deal with all the specific groups).

Third, there's GOOD reason to use the term "Islamism" to group ideologically-similar groups that want to bring Islam into politics, because there's a lot of cross-pollution between them in terms of exchange of ideas and members.

WHO is doing the grouping? Who decides that, for instance, Wahabism goes on the same list as Al Qaida? And what is it to "want to bring Islam into politics"? The whole faith is a political philosophy, with no separation even possible between state and mosque, because both are rooted in the same community resolving disputes the same way. Yes, there are those who want to remake Islam as Christianity with turbans, but it isn't. What there is, one can objectively say, is Christians wishing that Islam would go away or become tame like Protestant national churches, the same way they pushed out Roman Catholicism. - 142

Lastly, not that it matters, but google returns 49,400 hits for "militant islam" (quoted) and 49,300 hits for islamism. Hardly definitive, is it? Graft 17:27, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Look who's using each term. - 142

Since you've decided to engage in an active and constructive debate, I'll consider removing you from Wikipedia:problem users, where everyone who censors things without reading them must ultimately end up. - 142

Suggestion: move the Deobandis and anyone else who has a philosophy without a militant group behind it, to modern Islamic philosophy. If you want Islamic parties as a separate article, fine, but you have to include Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad as parties too, they run candidates against Fatah. That lets this article become militant Islamic groups without making much of a claim about them having a single ideology.

That leaves a total of three articles:

modern Islamic philosophy of which the so-called Islamist non-philosophy is the most intellectually diverse/bankrupt trend
Islam as a political movement which outlines the ways Islam has been used in and by political groups from World War I to the present.
militant Islamic groups which outlines those groups that work outside the framework of the political structure, including most resistance groups in non-democracies, whether or not they are terrorist or freedom fighter (i.e. fighting freedom, like G. W. Bush does).

Then you can add Islamic parties for those groups that work within democratic frameworks (in Iran, Palestine, Algeria, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, etc.) to advocate Islamic frameworks to achieve solutions in politics and economics. In that model, militant Islam disappears, but so does Islamism. Fair?

Two points: 1. You cannot seriously expect me to accept that "well, Islam is a political philosophy, and so there's no such thing as Islamism separate from Islam". This is a particular interpretation of Islam, and no matter how correct you may feel it is, millions of Muslims are willing to live without an Islamic state, and this puts them in a different category from those who agitate in favor of the same. "Islamism" is a label for the latter. They exist as a separate grouping of Muslims. What would you prefer to call them?

Whose label is "Islamism" for those people? That is the question you are not asking yourself. They do not see themselves as "separate" from those who see the secular state as useful as a regulator or check on Islam - just with a different level of trust in different processes - the "category" only exists in the mind of those who claim that "not being willing to live without an Islamic state" defines a thing called "Islamism". - 142

Those who see democracy as a way to implement this policy to get their Islamic state, form the Islamic parties. These exist in many nations. They have nothing to do with the terrorist groups, or at least, nothing we can talk about here in the encyclopedia neutrally, except for specific figures who might have contacts here and there. - 142

Islam as a political movement is quite clear on the distinctions and degrees of identity here, and what aspects of Islam each group is picking up and using for its own purposes - and also the way that empires sometimes have used Islam as a political football - the German Second Reich, to a very minor degree in Syria the Third Reich, the British Empire, and the Americans in Afghanistan too. - 142

2. Why do you insist that I haven't read your text? I've read it many times. I think it's really bad. I see no reason to keep it around. Also, why would you think that I haven't read books sitting on my own shelf?

I don't believe this. You have not read my text "many times" - why would you, if you think it's "really bad"? You wouldn't. What makes you think you have read it many times, is that you think you have already rejected its arguments many times. - 142

I'm just about sick of this, so I'm going to take off before you ruin what's quite possibly the best day of this year for me. Graft 20:01, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Such an extreme emotional reaction suggests very very strongly that your objections are not rational at all, but emotional - perhaps inducing some kind of emotional crisis. Could it be that you are a Muslim who has been denying that Islam is inherently political, and considering it none of your business that Muslims elsewhere are being killed for being in the way of non-Muslims, etc. ? If so you are in good company, but the way to deal with that is not to work with the thought criminal, assassination apologist and RK to invent a box called Islamism to put all this complexity in. I suggest you read the sources that I read, and see if you can come up with a better article with the same scope and facts. Very likely, you can - I wrote this one only to deal with an obvious POV.

In the meantime, Islamism must be deleted, as it is wholly redundant with militant Islam and Islam as a political movement, and the latter contain many facts and much context that the POV treatment of Islamism does not. And, if there is any interpretation of Islam that says that Islam should play no role in setting and interpreting the law, then, I have yet to see that. I would really appreciate any such Christianizing treatment that you can dig up, if it exists. - 142

Wikipedia users, please read the above carefully. This anonymous user (EntmootsOfTrolls) is threatening to delete the peer-reviewed Islamism article, and replace it with his own POV articles that were created by him, and him alone. This user has a long history of trying to bypass the peer-reviewprocess, makes up "facts" that the rest of us have exposed as fiction, and tries to shove his religious and political views into all articles on this encyclopedia. RK 23:28, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Let's be clear. Thus guy copied an already existing article (Islamism), retitled it to "Militant Islam", and then rewrote it to push his own personal religious and political views. This is a clear and outrageous violation of our NPOV policy, and there shouldn't be any more discussion. This is a clear form of vandalism. Please do not waste time by debating with him; as discussed already on the WikiEn list, it is recognized that he has no ability or desire to work with anyone, and is here simply to proselytize his own POV. RK 23:28, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

From VfD: Vote against deleting. masssivego 07:50 PST 18 Sep 2003 (PST)

It seems that there is a lack of consensus to delete this article. The above discussion is archived at Wikipedia:Archived delete debates and I am unlisting it from VfD. Angela 20:17, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I can see no justification whatsoever for deleting this article. It is a widely used standard term, used by academics, journalists, writers, commentators, etc. FearÉIREANN 01:04, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

JT, are you ever going to say WHAT it's a standard term for, who uses it, what their biases are, and so on? Or are you going to repeat the same bit forever? "Evildoers" is also a widely used standard term, employed by academics, journalists, writers, commentators, etc. Would you like to start that article? Graft 06:47, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

DELETE[edit]

this is a stupid article 71.126.70.18 01:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Search This Blog

anhduc wiki 4