| Revision as of 17:31, 5 April 2023 editBovianchovy (talk | contribs)48 edits →Graphic Images: new sectionTags: Mobile edit Mobile app edit iOS app edit← Previous edit |
Revision as of 05:21, 6 April 2023 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,304,379 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Boko Haram/Archive 4) (botNext edit → |
| Line 47: |
Line 47: |
|
|archive = Talk:Boko Haram/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Boko Haram/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
== Not ] == |
|
|
Jihad isn't terror, terror isn't jihad. There is no killing civilians in the definition of jihad. It'd be more approprate if we eject "Jihadist" word. ] (]) 12:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Once again you repeat the same mistake you're making across the board here on Misplaced Pages: you argue that your opinion should take precedence over sources. You've been told by multiple users already that that is not how Misplaced Pages works, and you've been warned by multiple users that your behaviour is disruptive. ] (]) 13:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:: This ain't my opinion. Jihad isn't terror, jihad is an ] word which literally means striving or struggling, especially with a praiseworthy aim.<ref name="ODI">{{cite encyclopedia|year=2014|title=Jihad|encyclopedia=The Oxford Dictionary of Islam|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=Oxford|url=http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t125/e1199|access-date=29 August 2014|editor=John L. Esposito|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140903062853/http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t125/e1199|archive-date=3 September 2014|url-status=live|df=dmy-all}}</ref><ref name="OEIP">{{cite encyclopedia|year=2014|title=Jihād|encyclopedia=The Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam and Politics|publisher=Oxford University Press|location=Oxford|url=http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/article/opr/t349/e0057|access-date=24 January 2017|doi=10.1093/acref:oiso/9780199739356.001.0001|isbn=9780199739356|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170123114402/http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref:oiso/9780199739356.001.0001/acref-9780199739356-e-0263|archive-date=23 January 2017|last2=Cook|first2=David|url-status=live|first1=Rudolph|last1=Peters|df=dmy-all}}</ref><ref name="EI2">{{Cite encyclopedia|year=2012|title=D̲j̲ihād|encyclopedia=Encyclopaedia of Islam|publisher=Brill|editor=P. Bearman|edition=2nd|doi=10.1163/1573-3912_islam_COM_0189|author=Tyan, E.|editor2=Th. Bianquis|editor3=C.E. Bosworth|editor4=E. van Donzel|editor5=W.P. Heinrichs}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=Jackson|first=Roy|url=https://semanticscholar.org/paper/6b83f157d425f8cce3587be290ef0af39d9ce3f6|title=What is Islamic Philosophy?|date=2014-02-05|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-1-315-81755-2|page=173|doi=10.4324/9781315817552|s2cid=55668951}}</ref> In an Islamic context, it can refer to almost any effort to make personal and social life conform with ] guidance, such as struggle against one's evil inclinations, ], or efforts toward the moral betterment of the ], though it is most frequently associated with ].<ref name="ODI" /><ref name="OEIP" /><ref>{{cite encyclopedia|year=2013|title=Jihad|encyclopedia=The Princeton Encyclopedia of Islamic Political Thought|publisher=Princeton University Press|editor=Gerhard Böwering, Patricia Crone|quote=Literally meaning "struggle,", jihad may be associated with almost any activity by which Muslims attempt to bring personal and social life into a pattern of conformity with the guidance of God.}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|author=Roy Jackson|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=5XPMAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA173|title=What is Islamic philosophy?|publisher=Routledge|year=2014|isbn=978-1317814047|page=173|quote=''jihad'' Literally 'struggle' which has many meanings, though most frequently associated with war.}}</ref> In ], the term refers to armed struggle against unbelievers, scholars equate military jihad with defensive warfare.<ref name="OEIP" /><ref name="EI2" /><ref name="hallaq334" /> There is no targeting of civilians anywhere in this definition. Since I gave seven cites at this message; you probably understood neither ], nor ], nor any other ] does not ] |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Reliable sources describe Boko Haram as "Jihadist". Whether you think that it is a correct terminology or not is not relevant for Misplaced Pages. Furthermore, I '''strongly''' recommend you to stop claiming others "don't understand". In your short time on Misplaced Pages, you have already received multiple warnings from several users over your edit warring and disruptive behavior. Instead of claiming that all experienced editors are wrong and only you are right, now is the time to change how you interact and edit here. ] (]) 13:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: This is not my think or a controversial issue: attacking civilians is not jihad due to definition of jihad. It is absolutely not correct to equate this definition with terrorism, terror is different, jihad is much different. To give an example, wasn't there been any ''']''' claiming they were demand freedom, although to they stole innocent peoples' lifes? Can we call these people humane? Can't we say if even the situation of that reliable sources show them as "seekers of the rights" does not change this result. Because what they do does not match what they say. That's all I wanted to and can to say. I end this discussion here since I have run out of my English vocabulary and what I can do. You guys are authorized, and I am a poor user who wants justice. For this reason, I leave this issue to your conscience, I leave here with the pride of knowing that I'm rightious and return to my job. Have a nice day. ] (]) 14:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC |
|
|
:::::This user is indefinitely blocked on turkish Misplaced Pages.] (]) 16:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I've heard this before, but it might not be enough to change it. The maker of the film my brother the islamist met a researcher who differentiated btw the two, if memory serves well. Probably for wiki p islam. ] (]) 19:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:Not all jihad is terrorism, but there's a common type of Islamic terrorism called jihadism, which BH & ISIL easily fit the definition of. ] (]) 17:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{reflist-talk}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Aliases, alternatives == |
|
|
I also remember they were called the nigerian taliban, the same way those mozambiqan people, ie their insurgents& friends over there, were known as taliban or shabab. |
|
|
|
|
|
There was a '15 aljazeera docc about boko haram that said it was known as yan yusufi or yusufiyah . |
|
|
|
|
|
How to reference this? ] (]) 19:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: If you could link the source in the edit, and if it's common enough, I'd say you can just put an "also referred to as" in the header. ] (]) 17:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Here, see works by Okoye, FC Onuoha & I Aghedo (all separately). ] (]) 12:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Believe found film. Either |
|
|
|
|
|
Watch "The Origins of Boko Haram"- Al Jazeera Documentary (http://omojuwa.com › 2015/01 › watch-the-origins-of-bo.) ...or |
|
|
Boko Haram: Behind the Rise of Nigeria's Armed Group - Al ... (http://www.aljazeera.com › program › 2016/12/22 › b...) ] (]) 15:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== References == |
|
== References == |
Is this sentence at the end of the fifth paragraph grammatically incorrect or am I just a fool - "However, attacks by Boko Haram have a separate investigation conducted by The Wall Street Journal backed recent claims that Shekau was dead.". If the sentence is there to bring up additional evidence of Shekau's death, I don't know why it starts with 'however, attacks by Boko Haram', which just sounds like the WSJ report has questionable authority and Shekau is in fact alive. I only made this topic because as the last sentence of the introduction, it gave me more questions about the status of Boko Haram than the previous four paragraphs answered. Whatsgoingonwiththelackof (talk) 04:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I am new to the community, but the use of graphic images embedded in this article seems inappropriate. I don't think they add any value, and they make the article less accessible to people with trauma/phobias. Consider removing them or replacing them with less graphic images. This will not diminish the gravity of the topic, I believe. Bovianchovy (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Referencing and citation: criterion not met
Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
