Talk:Political Islam

Source that discusses various types

In Political Islam: Religion and Politics in the Arab World By Nazih Ayubi[1] I found (start missing, page not in GBooks) "differences between the fundamentalist Islamism of Sayyid Qutb and the Jihadists, the liberalnationalist Islamism of M. Khalafalla and M. ‘Imara, the culturalhistoricist Islamism of Tariq al-Bishri and ‘Adil Husain, and the Islamism claimed by owners of the so-called Islamic Investment Companies. On an intellectual level, liberal-nationalist Islamism, culturalhistoricist Islamism, and the broader circle of discourse revolving around the issue of authenticity (asala) may eventually translate themselves into a movement for cultural nationalism that is nativist, ‘specifist’, if not particularly secularist." Doug Weller talk 13:29, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, that's 1993, too old for a current description, could be followed up. Doug Weller talk 13:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

What is this matter that atheists are being considered as terrorist?

Recently I came to know a spine chilling news that atheists are being considered as terrorists in Arab. Whats the matter? And such a serious matter should be immediately entered in Wikipedia. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-declares-all-atheists-are-terrorists-in-new-law-to-crack-down-on-political-dissidents-9228389.html

2405:204:4313:D858:9C42:A500:6274:3CED (talk) 19:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion of Dr Bill Warner

@Doug Weller

You justified your deletion with "This guy is a physicist "a former physics professor whom the Southern Poverty Law Center in 2011 counted among a core group of ten anti-Islam hardliners in the United States." - doesn't belong here"

'former physics professor'

Is the fact that Warner has a PhD in Physics sufficient (or indeed 'any') justification for removing him from this article? I'm not aware of any policy or guideline that requires us only to cite authorities whose qualifications coincide with the subject of the article. I note, for example, that the article on Atheism mentions Richard Dawkins, despite his doctorate being in Animal Behaviour (not Atheism or Religious studies); the guitarist Brian May has a doctorate in Astrophysics, but his Wikipedia article seems exclusively focused on his activities as a musician; Conan Doyle's article seems more interested in the fact that he wrote the Sherlock Holmes stories than in his Masters degree in medicine.

'Southern Poverty Law Center in 2011'

Is there anything in Wikipedia policy or guidelines that suggests that those of whom the SPLC disapproves should not be mentioned in relevant articles?

Were SPLC's 2011 article more accurate, it would have labelled Warner as 'anti-Political Islam'. Note that 'Political Islam' is the subject of this article. No political ideology, system or position should be exempt from criticism. Therefore it is as acceptable to criticise those aspects of Islam that are Political as it is to criticise Fascism, Communism, Capitalism or any other political system or ideology, or political aspects of Christianity, Hinduism or other religions (or at least it SHOULD be as acceptable).

Moreover, the list was published eleven years ago in 2011. In 2018 the SPLC, labelled Majid Nawaz as 'anti-Muslim' (his only 'crime' was to be a Muslim advocating reform, and critical of fundamentalist Islam and jihadi violence). Unfortunately for the SPLC, they underestimated Nawaz's financial clout and willingness to conduct a prosecution, and were found guilty of defamation. The SPLC had to admit that their 'Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists' was badly researched, erroneous and misleading (https://www.splcenter.org/splc-statement-video#ali). Assuming that individuals and organisations grow wiser with age, some doubt might be cast on the judgement and reliability on their 2011 pronouncement on Bill Warner.

'doesn't belong here'

If Warner is known, it is for his research and views on Political Islam, not Physics. His definition of 'Political Islam' arguably allows a more rigorous analysis than other definitions: the impact of a doctrine clearly becoming 'political' when it extends beyond those who adhere to the faith.

Furthermore, Warner appears to be 'notable' as a commentator on Political Islam. His research is cited by authors such as Zafar Iqbal, Michael Leeden, Nirode Mohanty, Nonie Darwish and Ivan Rioufol. His research has been cited in doctoral dissertations, in reports of the U.S. Army War College and by counter-terrorism experts. Some of his Youtube lectures and presentations have several million views. He has led seminars and given public talks throughout the United States, Canada, in Central Europe and the Balkan countries, including to the Danish Parliament; and given many talks and interviews on the national Television stations of central and eastern European countries. He has been interviewed by (for example) commentators such as Dave Rubin and Gad Saad, and debated with Quilliam international on LBC.

There are articles devoted to him on en.wikipedia, and also in Czech, Russian, Hebrew, Polish, Hungarian, Arabic and Egyptian Arabic - all focusing on his research and views on Political Islam. This suggests that the international Wikipedia community considers him a notable commentator on Political Islam.

Conclusion

Taking all this into account, I suggest we restore my edit, and if you wish to append a sentence pointing out that eleven years ago the SPLC described him as 'anti-Islam' and that his PhD is in physics, I won't object.

JeddBham64 (talk) 06:03, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

It needs to be a summary version of his article so more or less the lead with something about what Bale and Uddin say. Doug Weller talk 16:21, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Your suggestion, would (I guess) be reasonable in many cases, but isn't appropriate here. As it stands, a 'summary version of [Warner's] article' would not include his definition of 'Political Islam', since that definition has been consistently deleted whenever an editor has tried to introduce it there.

Moreover, Bale and Uddin's criticisms of Warner do not address Warner's definition of Political Islam, and therefore including them in a section concerned with the 'Development of the Term' would be irrelevant and feel 'ad-hominem'.

A solution would be that you append to my restored sentence a brief (i.e. no longer - or not much longer - than my sentence) summary of a reputable author's critique of Warner's definition. That would maintain the article's focus and keep keep things clearly 'ad-rem'. JeddBham64 (talk) 07:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller

Given that you deleted my contribution a mere 43 minutes after I had made it, I know that you are normally fast out of the starting blocks...

Therefore I'll assume (to quote Mohammed) that your 'silence implies your consent' and restore my edit, and await your brief sentence from a reputable source offering germane and ad rem criticism of Warner's definition. JeddBham64 (talk) 05:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

My silence implies that I had more important things to do, not consent. I don't have to comment "ad rem" on his definition, but he does have to be put in context. Doug Weller talk 15:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Re the wikilink under the text 'anti-Islam' linking to the 'islamophobia' article:

@Doug Weller

First of all, the text of the Wikilink should read 'anti-Political-Islam' not 'anti-Islam'.

The two are quite different and distinct things: there are many devout Muslims who are anti-political-Islam - for example our friend Majid Nawaz, Imam Tawhidi and, from my own country, Imam Hassen Chalghoumi to name but three (we could add Muslims who advocated secular states - such as Gamel Abdel Nasser, Kemal Ataturk and Benazir Bhutto).

Secondly, nowhere in Warner's article is there any suggestion that Dr Warner has been accused of 'islamophobia' (I'm sure that if a credible accusation existed that it would be mentioned in the 'Criticism' section of his article).

I also note that being against Political Islam does not generally fall within dictionary definitions of 'islamophobia':

'Merriam-Webster : 'irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against Islam or people who practice Islam

'Cambridge: 'unreasonable dislike or fear of, and prejudice against, Muslims or Islam

'Longman: 'hatred or fear of Muslims

I am reasonably familiar with Warner's publications and talks, and know of no instance where Warner has expressed anything other than respect towards the religious aspects of Islam (i.e. those aspects related to faith and belief, and that do not adversely impact Kafirs), and I have never read or heard him express dislike or fear of Muslims as individuals or as a people.

Therefore, as it stands, not least because the accusation of 'islamophobia' is unsourced, the wikilink is defamatory.

Rather than surreptitiously implying this kind of allegation via a wikilink (thus by-passing the need to cite a source justifying the accusation), it might be better to make the allegation explicitly, in the subject's article. That way its validity can be checked, and it can be deleted if found to be inadequately sourced, and Wikipedia kept free of defamatory content.

The following are from Wikipedia's Policies and Guidelines:

'It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that the material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory.' wikipedia:libel

'This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article' Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

'Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted,' as appropriate' . Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

In view of all the above, I think it best to change 'anti-Islam' to the more accurate 'critic of Political Islam' and remove the potentially defamatory wikilink. JeddBham64 (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

We don't use dictionary definitions that way. His article says "the Southern Poverty Law Center in 2011 counted among a core group of ten anti-Islam hardliners in the United States.". Doug Weller talk 15:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

where in Warner's article is there an accusation of Islamophobia?

@Doug Weller

Where in Warner's article is there a clear accusation of Islamophobia made against Dr Warner?

His being once mentioned in a several hundred page book with 'islamophobia' in the title doesn't count, since the mention of him doesn't accuse him of 'islamophobia' - you could as validly accuse the publishers or the author of 'islamophobia' since their names also appears in the book.

Unless there is an explicit accusation in the source, then it is defamatory.

JeddBham64 (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

re self-published template

@Doug Weller

The statement in question is:

"Bill Warner, a physicist and critic of Political Islam, uses the term political Islam for those aspects of Islamic doctrine that affect non-Muslims (Kafirs) and non-Muslim societies."

The sources are supporting a claim about Dr Warner's opinions, not a claim about Political Islam. Therefore the source merely needs to confirm what Warner's opinions are (not whether that opinion is correct or not).

According to Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works, it is acceptable to use an author's self-published work to justify a statement of that author's personal opinions:

"Self-published sources [...] may be used as sources of information about themselves [...] so long as:

- the material is neither unduly self-serving nor exceptional in nature;

- it does not involve claims about third parties;

- it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;

- there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

- the article is not based primarily on such sources." JeddBham64 (talk) 16:24, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

quote from Jihadism Past and Present By Nirode Mohanty

@Doug Weller

"“According to Bill Warner: Both the Koran and Mohammed command the terror of jihad on non-Muslims or Kefirs until Islam dominates. After Mohammed died, the caliphs killed all apostates and conquered all the Middle East and northern Africa. After Islam enters a society, over time, the society becomes totally Islamic. This is totalitarianism."

The text from 'Both' to 'totalitarianism' cites a video-lecture by Dr Warner.

Much of Mohanty's book can be found here - the quote comes from page 264:

https://www.google.fr/books/edition/Jihadism/EnhyDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Jihadism_+Past+and+Present+-+Nirode+Mohanty&pg=PR4&printsec=frontcover JeddBham64 (talk) 16:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 16:40, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

re self-published template (apologies for any repetition)

@Doug Weller

You are questioning one of the sources because it is self-published. The statement in question is:

"Bill Warner, a physicist and critic of Political Islam, uses the term political Islam for those aspects of Islamic doctrine that affect non-Muslims (Kafirs) and non-Muslim societies."

The claim made by the sentence is not about Political Islam, but about one of Dr Warner's OPINIONS on Political Islam.

Wikipedia's policies and guidelines suggest that it is acceptable to use an author's self-published work to justify a statement of that author's personal opinions.

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works#For_claims_by_self-published_authors_about_themselves

"Self-published sources [...] may be used as sources of information about themselves [...] so long as:

the material is neither unduly self-serving nor exceptional in nature;

it does not involve claims about third parties;

it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;

there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

the article is not based primarily on such sources."

I think that the sentence in question violates none of these caveats.

I also refer you to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Statements_of_opinion

"Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says...." [...] When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the readers that they are reading an opinion."

I believe that the "uses the term" in the disputed sentence acts as such an 'inline qualifier'.

"Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material."

The book cited as a reference for Dr Warner's opinions is written and published by Dr Warner himself and therefore does not violate the interdiction stated above. JeddBham64 (talk) 08:16, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Ok. It's not at all unusual for us to not use sources published by the subject as they often fail "no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;" - ie people lie about themselves, but in this case, fine. Doug Weller talk 16:31, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Doug. JeddBham64 (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Section Documentation Centre Political Islam violates NPOV

Written from only one pov, a favourable one. It even calls its reports "scientific" in Wikivoice. It didn't take long to find some sources with a critical pov, eg FACTSHEET: DOCUMENTATION CENTER POLITICAL ISLAM (DOKUMENTATIONSSTELLE POLITISCHER ISLAM) from Princeton University. It details some major criticisms. Doug Weller talk 13:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

:The factual work of the official Austrian fund on this topic has been very well recognised over the last three years and there is also a regular exchange with other scientific institutions as can be read on the website. A critical part can be added. Occasionally you will find these at all institutions, as in this one article. Even if there are often heated discussions at the scientific level, please always remain balanced, objective and neutral. Erkenntnis123 (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

by the way - this old article Bridge Initiative Team is from 2021... a lot has changed and been done since then, which can be read on the website... Erkenntnis123 (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the source mentioned is also heavily criticised and has been labelled as Hamas-friendly by the media: https://www.algemeiner.com/2020/02/10/whitewashing-hamas-at-georgetown-university/

So please take this point into account - there may be more neutral sources that have critically examined the issue. Erkenntnis123 (talk) 14:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

The Algemeiner article is written by an adviser for Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America so not a reliable source. We've even had to ban editors for trying to skew our policy through dishonest means. The Algemeiner strongly takes sides in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Doug Weller talk 15:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@Erkenntnis123 You are a single purpose account who has three times not responded to messages on you talk page about WP:COI and WP:PAID. Not a good look. Doug Weller talk 16:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

:::Thanks for the tip - I have unfortunately overlooked after I was now but longer no longer here. But would have answered now. Erkenntnis123 (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, a think tank documenting Islamic extremism partly set up by a conservative Christian German political party - that already smells bad long before one starts reading a report on its activities. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

The primary sourced first paragraph is wholly undue without independent secondary coverage. The material, as it stands, is borderline WP:PROMO for this institute. Bizarre content indeed. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I did some minor cleanup, removing some puffery, original research, and factoids that weren't relevant. The main points of the content remain unchanged. ~Anachronist (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

It was Erkenntnis123 who added the section from which you removed the word scientific. I'm not happy with this edit they made today either.[2]Doug Weller talk 16:50, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: After our edits to that section, it looks neutral now. I have removed the POV tag. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@Anachronist Thanks. Doug Weller talk 17:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

::Sorry that is wrong - it is not a think tank from a poltical party. The fund was founded by the Austrian government by the Christian Democrats together with the Greens. The fund is independent according to austrian law and follows a defined purpose on a scientific level, as you can also read on the website. Erkenntnis123 (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Erkenntnis123 blocked for undisclosed paid editing. I think all his article edits should be reverted. Doug Weller talk 18:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the dubious quote. Others may deal with the rest as they see fit. I can't quite decide on whether the parts sourced to actual news sources should be allowed to stay. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Struck through edits by Erkenntnis123 now confirmed as sockpuppet.

Definitions violates NPOV / Mouhanad Khorchide

The user Iskandar 323 has removed all definitions and views of scientists who define Political Islam differently. Mouhanad Khorchide from University of Munster is a recognized researcher on this topic in the entire German-speaking area and was removed with the comment "Removing opinion from obscurity". Is this really the equivalent of an encyclopedia?

Therefore I propose to add the part of the scientist and theologian again:

Mouhanad Khorchide (University of Münster) as head of the scientific advisory board of the Documentation Centre Political Islam in Austria sees the term "Political Islam" as a technical term, which should therefore be written with a capital "P" and defines it as follows:

"Political Islam, as defined by the Documentation Centre, is an ideology of supremacy that aims at influencing or changing society, culture, state, politics and/or polity according to such values and norms that are regarded as Islamic by the actors of Political Islam, but are in clear contradiction to the rule of law, democracy and human rights."

Bingrau (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Besides the part where you incorrectly call him a scientist, you are a single purpose account created only to work on the Documentation Centre Political Islam alongside the now blocked Erkenntnis123, starting with a draft article on that institution."

"Bingrau address the queries on your talk page as to your affiliation both with Documentation Centre Political Islam and User:Erkenntnis123. Transparency is required. S0091 (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I actually wanted to help him because I see it as an important topic. I didn't know it was forbidden. It's a shame that the comments aren't noticed... I'll give up my attempts after it seems futile. Bingrau (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2023 (UTC)". Your statement seems to acknowledge that you are also either a paid editor or have a major conflict of interest. You have the right to post here but you shouldn't edit any related article. Doug Weller talk 08:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Struck through sockmaster's post. vErkenntnis123 was their sockpuppet

References