Talk:Jihad

I have found at least one and possibly two alternative English spellings to the word Jihad. The first is Jehad, evidenced by Encyclopedia Brittanica^[1]. The second is the Jihath, evidenced here on a Vimeo Video^[2] (warning graphic only sourced but not linked for this reason) and a PDF document that appears to go into detail about Paramilitary Groups in the area - I think that Sri Lanka has to work with in order to maintain control over the country. One of the groups is the Jihath Group and it appears to be a Jihadist group. The PDF is the fourth chapter in a work and is called "Partners in crime: SLAFs and Paramilitaries"^[3]. I think this may be a transliteration issue because it might be that in some transliterations the "d" is replaced with a "th". Possibly because it is transliterated from a Desi background rather than an Arab background. I tried asking/looking around but couldn't get an answer. If anyone knows about Desi transliteration to English for Arabic please advise on if the word "Jihath" is actually the word "Jihad". I think its important because alternative spellings included are not dictionary styles in the sense that WikiPolicy wants to avoid; adding alternative spellings help reader understand what it is they are reading when they see alternative spellings elsewhere.

Please remove this lie. 129.12.158.247 (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

The citations don't even say that, so not only ahistorical, defamatory to the Qur'an (by failing to distinguish people's interpretation from the text) but also unacademic as the sources contained do not support the statement. 129.12.158.247 (talk) 03:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

The article says ...the sword verses have historically been interpreted to... which makes a clear distinction between the text and its interpretation. Kowal2701 (talk) 15:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

The BBC article and the other cited source are not sufficient to support the claim that this has been the historical interpretation. Unless more reliable references are added, the wording should be changed to indicate scholarly controversy and clarify that only some scholars have historically interpreted it this way. In its current form, the article gives the impression that the “sword verses” completely removed all restrictions on jihad to purely defensive contexts, which, as far as I know, is not the majority view.

The wording of the BBC source does not imply anything close to what the article suggests; it has been completely distorted. The BBC states that only some Muslim thinkers in the past held this view:

But some Muslim thinkers in the past, and some more radical Muslim thinkers today, take a different view. They say that other verses in the Qur'an, the so-called 'sword verses', have "abrogated" (revoked or annulled) the verses that permit warfare only in defence. They used these 'sword verses' to justify war against unbelievers as a tool of spreading Islam (Qur'an 9:5, 9:29).

Regarding the second source, its content simplifies Muslim attitudes toward polytheists and does not demonstrate that such an approach represented the unanimous position of Islamic law. Interpretations have varied across time and place. For example, Hindus and Buddhists during the Islamic conquest of India were treated similarly to People of the Book despite being, in theory, pagans.

The current wording of the article is especially problematic because it does not specify what “historical interpretation” means: is it from the classical age, the golden era, the 19th century, or another period? Lucasdmca (talk) 22:35, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Also even if it was 'defamatory', Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED Kowal2701 (talk) 15:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree. The phrase in the article should be changed to:

The Qur'an justifies war in self-defense or in response to aggression against Muslims. However, some scholars in the past, as well as certain radical modern scholars, have interpreted the “sword verses” as abrogating other passages and as justifying offensive war against unbelievers and the forcible conversion of polytheistic pagans during the early Muslim conquests. Lucasdmca (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

That’s better, but needs a source Kowal2701 (talk) 23:00, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

The source says: Islamic attitudes towards non-Muslims Islam makes a sharp distinction between those non-Muslims who belong to a religious system with revealed Books, that is the ahl al-Kitäb ('People of the Book') and those non-Muslims considered to be polytheists, idolaters or adherents of traditional religions. In conformity with the doctrine of the successive revelations and of the Prophetic chain, the Jews and the Chris-tians as possessors of the Holy Books are not forced to adopt Islam. This tolerance was applied also to the Zoroastrians as well as to the adherents of some ancient Near Eastern religious systems known as the Sabeans and later even to the Hindus (notwithstanding their multitude of gods) and the Buddhists.

As regards the second group, since the Prophet Muhammad was sent to preach Islam particularly to those who as yet have not received any revealed guidance, he and his successors were obliged to combat traditional religion and to convert the 'infidels'. These were given the choice of either becoming Muslims or fighting; in the case of defeat their lot was captivity and slavery. Kowal2701 (talk) 14:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Dune's Jihad In the Dune universe, created by Frank Herbert, "jihad" is a central and multifaceted concept, primarily associated with the Butlerian Jihad and the later Muad'Dib's Jihad. These events symbolize transformative moments in humanity’s history, shaping its political, cultural, and spiritual landscape for millennia. While inspired by historical and religious concepts of holy war, Herbert's depiction of jihad is expansive, addressing the interplay of human evolution, technology, and ideology.

The Butlerian Jihad, occurring over 10,000 years before the events of Dune, represents humanity's revolt against the domination of thinking machines. This catastrophic war led to the eradication of artificial intelligence and the establishment of the Orange Catholic Bible's tenet: "Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind." The war catalyzed the development of specialized human abilities, such as the Mentats, Bene Gesserit, and Navigators of the Spacing Guild, replacing forbidden technology functions. It also created a lingering fear of machines, deeply ingrained in the collective psyche of the universe.

Muad'Dib's Jihad, led by Paul Atreides, unfolds after the events of Dune and extends across the galaxy. Sparked by Paul’s rise to power as Emperor and his manipulation of Fremen culture, the jihad is both a physical and ideological conquest. Paul's Fremen forces, driven by their messianic belief in him as the Kwisatz Haderach, wage a bloody campaign that reshapes the galactic order. Though Paul achieves his political goals, the jihad results in a staggering loss of life, with billions dying in its wake. This war's moral and philosophical consequences weigh heavily on Paul, reflecting Herbert's exploration of the unintended consequences of charismatic leadership and religious fervor.

Herbert uses the concept of jihad to explore broader themes, including the dangers of combining religion and politics, the unpredictability of human-driven movements, and the limitations of prescience. Despite his foresight, Paul’s struggle to control the jihad underscores the idea that once a movement gains momentum, it can become uncontrollable, even for its initiator. This tension between individual agency and collective action is a recurring theme in the series.

The legacy of jihad in the Dune universe is both transformative and cautionary. While it establishes a new order and strengthens human resilience, it also serves as a stark reminder of the destructive potential of ideology and violence. Through his nuanced portrayal, Herbert invites readers to reflect on the cyclical nature of history and humanity's capacity for greatness and self-destruction. 121.75.202.128 (talk) 04:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. A1Cafel (talk) 04:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Forced conversions are explicitly prohibited in the Quran numerous places . The sources cited do not back up the claim made either.

"forcibly converting polytheistic pagans during the early Muslim conquests.[14][15]: 46"

The pagan Arabs who persecuted the Muslims were given peace as opposed to violence when the army returned with power. Sarah serafin (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Surah Al-Baqarah, Verse 256

"There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion"

Al-Kahf 19

"And say, "The truth is from your Lord, so whoever wills - let him believe; and whoever wills - let him disbelieve.""

Here, free will in belief is explicitly affirmed, even while consequences are noted for disbelievers in the Hereafter.

--- Could go on for a while... Sarah serafin (talk) 22:02, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. PianoDan (talk) 22:30, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

This article says: "Ibn Taymiyya's views on Jihad are explained in his treatise titled Qāʿidah mukhtaṣarah fī qitāl al-kuffār wa muhādanatuhum wa taḥrīm qatlahum li mujarrad kufrihim. (An abridged rule on fighting the unbelievers and making truces with them, and the prohibition of killing them merely because of their unbelief)." However, if you go to page 7 of this pdf: https://brill.com/view/journals/si/120/2/article-p289_3.xml It seems that there is an academic dispute on whether Ibn Taymiyyah wrote this treaty. HiThere23419394p` (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Would it be possible to create a counterpart to List of Crusades? Braganza (talk) 14:33, 3 March 2026 (UTC)