Talk:Sexual jihad

Rename to "Sex Jihad hoax"?

Ample evidence is emerging that the allegations of sex jihad are propaganda fabricated by authoritarian regimes. The Spiegel details how the Assad regime arrested women and forced them to "confess" to a sex jihad. The IB Times reports a facebook hoax related to the events in Egypt. We should consider renaming this article to "Sex Jihad hoax".VR _talk 13:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Are these sources predominantly using the term "jihad al nikah" or "sex jihad" or sex jihad hoax"? MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

They're using the term "sex jihad".VR _talk 04:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The story is a lie and the topic needs to be edited ,and i will edit it right now . 91.74.11.180 (talk) 15:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Better sources needed

Several of the sources used in this article are unreliable. For example, the Iranian state-run "Shabestan News Agency" attributes a negative to "some Wahabi clerics". I'm not sure of the source's reliability and the source has reason to be biased against "Wahabi clerics", cause of Saudi-Iranian rivalry. Another pretty biased source is this one. The author wants to expose "contradictions in Islam" and the "uncompromising mentality, which is prevalent throughout the Islamic world" and he doesn't like "Western leaders" who want to "appease" and "respect" Islam. He is from the David Horowitz Freedom Center, which is far-right and anti-Islam.

I'm replacing these sources with fact tags, until we can find more reliable sources.VR _talk 13:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I just removed a Youtube video and a link to "Shiite news," a blatant sectarian hate website. Neither of these sources pass WP:IRS, and the information there was already supported by other sources; they are unnecessary and inappropriate. It appears as though this story was latched on to by various factions trying to push sectarian points of view, so it's no surprise that some of that might find its way on here. That being said, anything of the sort (including think tanks with clear agendas) ought to be taken out. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The story about Harith al-Dhari issuing a fatwa "calling for Iraqi women in Mosul (...) to practice sexual Jihad and submit themselves voluntarily to the Jihadists fighting Iraqi Army" solely relies on this story on the obscure website AWDNews ("Another Western Dawn News"). Surely, a website that publishes crap like this, about a Turkish doctor claiming after "meticulous medical examination" [sic!] that "around 70% of Islamists who fight in Syria and northern Iraq are diagnosed with sexually transmitted disease due unsafe sexual intercourses and in accordance with the results of the medical tests, approximately 30% of them are infected with HIV", hardly can be considered as a serious source. That's why I reverted this contribution from user 24.90.57.129 for the second time, and will continue to do so if necessary. --Hereticus obstinatus (talk) 14:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I actually looked at the source after your first deletion and agree that a better source is needed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I also have my doubts about the alleged Abu Qusay interview on Tunisian TV, which could well be a fabrication, too. Anyway, the text itself is a direct copy/paste from the Shia Post article here.--Hereticus obstinatus (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Adultery section seems like OR

The section on adultery and marriage in Islam seems like a violation of Wikipedia's policy against original research; while the original editor may have felt the information to be relevant given the article's subject matter, the section is, essentially, a synthesis drawn by said editor(s). I really think the whole section ought to be removed. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

ISIL

Some pretty reliable sources are reporting sexual jihad from women of Malaysia, Australia and United Kingdom origins in service of the new caliphate. Shrigley (talk) 23:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

True. This information should be added in the article. BengaliHindu (talk) 19:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 17:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

BBC also has an interesting catchphrase, "jihadi bride" while explaining more about this phenomenon. I don't think this article should say "controversial" and "allegedly" so much because there is quite a lot of incontrovertible evidence of sexual jihad to the recent conflict. Shrigley (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The article needs an update and re editing

The article and the news sources are outdated and false bogus stories it was based on the Tunisian interior minister false clime that Tunisian women are sleeping with dozens of Syrian rebels , the clime & story was investigation by Media outlets, rights organizations such as Tunisia Human Rights Watch and activists and their findings concluded it was a bogus stories "A hoax" , There is nothing in Islam that is called “sexual jihad” or Jihad Al-Nikah the sexual jihad is a hoax , thus the Article is original research according to Wikipedia policy

Extended content

Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by a reliable source(for example, Oxford University Press, Britannica Online Encyclopedia). Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, its original research .|} French daily Le Monde and American magazine Foreign Policy wrote articles and conducted investigation reports on Sexual jihad lie. After that, a torrent of Western and Arab articles were published in media outlets around the world in an attempt to compensate for falling in the trap of such a lie. any rejection of re editing The article with the objective to maintain the outdated false info in the article is trolling , furthermore a previous editor noted that its a hoax and provided a link with Ample evidence that the allegations of sex jihad are propaganda fabricated by authoritarian regimes. 91.74.11.180 (talk) 19:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC) I have re edited the article based on updated "Reliable Sources" and "Opinions of Experts" including Muslim Scholars , Investigative journalist from both western and Arab media outlets and media outlets with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy , in addition to rights organizations including Tunisia researchers for Human Rights Watch . I made sure that there is no personal opinion in my re edit although the style of the article may be improved . 91.74.11.180 (talk) 08:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC) Don't remove referenced content arbitrarily! You are trying to move article from one POV to another POV, we need NPOV article.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 09:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC) The current article is POV and original research , thus i re edited the article , and my re edit is NPOV not another POV , for the following : its based on updated "Reliable Sources" on the story its also NPOV since it's based on rights organizations including Tunisia researchers for Human Rights Watch and "Opinions of Experts" including Muslim Scholars , Investigative journalist from both western and Arab media outlets and media outlets with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy , including French daily Le Monde and American magazine Foreign Policy wrote articles and conducted investigation reports on this lie. After that, a torrent of Western and Arab articles were published in media outlets around the world in an attempt to compensate for falling in the trap of such a lie. thus its not POV but NPOV , I made sure that there is no personal opinion in my re edit but supported with well-sourced updated material on the story although the style of the article may be improved , Feel free to re edit the style of the article as long its based on updated reliable source on the story and not to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the reliable source or it will be a violation of Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines the Current article is a violation of Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines and POV and original research and outdated , thus i will re edit the Current outdated flawed article and POV , with an updated NPOV article although the style of the article may be improved. 91.74.11.180 (talk) 12:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC) References