Aside from completely non-controversial historical and cultural matters, Wikipedia is a sinister Leftist propaganda site that defames those who stand for freedom and downplays jihad activity, not just love jihad, but jihad of all kinds.
“Wikipedia dismisses Love Jihad as a conspiracy theory by Hindus, but claims reverse Love Jihad against Muslims is real,” OpIndia, June 12, 2021:
For thousands, if not lakhs of non-Muslim women in India, Love Jihad is a grim and disconcerting reality, but not for online platform Wikipedia that intends to wish away the sufferings of these women as a fictional concept. In another incidence of misinformation spread by leftist online encyclopedia, Wikipedia dismisses the phenomenon of Love Jihad as “a conspiracy theory developed by the proponents of Hindutva that has been used to invoke prejudice against Muslims”.
“The conspiracy theory purports that Muslim men target Hindu women for conversion to Islam by means such as seduction, feigning love, deception, kidnapping, and marriage, as part of a broader “war” by Muslims against India, and an organised international conspiracy, for domination through demographic growth and replacement,” read the distorted definition of Love Jihad published on Wikipedia.
In order to lend credence to its assertion that Love Jihad is not a real phenomenon, the Wikipedia page equated it with western theories of Jewish world domination, white nationalism and Euro-American Islamophobia. The page said Love Jihad depicted Oriental portrayal of Muslims as being barbaric and hypersexual.
These unwarranted parallels are drawn to reinforce the twisted notion of Love Jihad peddled by Wikipedia. By calling it the handiwork of Hindutva ideologues, likening it to western conspiracy theories, and slamming Hindutva publications for its dissemination, Wikipedia is attempting to whitewash the scourge that has afflicted thousands of women in India, many of whom are not even alive, simply because they were killed by the assailants for going against them and resisting their forced conversion to Islam.
The page is also made part of a series on Islamophobia on Wikipedia, thereby making the biasness [sic] of the page clear. Instead of being a neutral page that an encyclopaedia is supposed to be, the page on Love Jihad presents a highly biased Islamist viewpoint, the the article reading more like an op-ed published on an Islamist left liberal publication than a genuine crowd-sourced encyclopaedia page.
With this, Wikipedia is trying to completely dismiss the crime of Grooming Jihad or Love Jihad using its power and influence. It is notable that when one searches for ‘Love Jihad’ on Google, the Wikipedia definition for the term appears on the top of the search results. Thus, the Internet giants are spreading a faulty and highly problematic definition of the term, and tries to dismiss an alarming and real problem taking place in India.
The Islamist Wikipedia editors and moderators have also locked the page to prevent netizens from making corrections to the page. The page has been made extended confirmed protected, which means people with only extended confirmed status can edit it. The talk page of the page shows that a large number of people have objected to the portrayal of the phenomenon on it, but the moderators overruled them, reverted any edits made contrary to the claim made by the page, and locked it so that most people can’t edit it.
The menace of Love Jihad that continues to afflict non-Muslim women across India
Contrary to what Wikipedia would have us believe, “Love Jihad”, also known as “Romeo Jihad” in some countries, is a strategy of luring vulnerable non-Muslim girls by the agency of either deception, lies, intimidation, or by feigned love to bring them under the fold of Islam. Instead of genuine marital bliss, these girls get trapped in a web of deceit and lies and are often coerced, threatened and sometimes tortured to relinquish their faith and convert to Islam. In some cases, victims are even killed or mortally wounded by the assailants for refusing to convert their religion or threatening to file a police complaint against the culprits.
While Wikipedia alleged that Love Jihad is just a figment of imagination conjured up to further ‘Islamophobia’, the literature on the phenomenon is too profound enough to simply dismiss it as a mere conspiracy theory aimed to target Muslims. There have been umpteen incidents that conclusively debunk Wikipedia’s assertion that Love Jihad is a concoction purveyed by the proponents of Hindutva. Those incidents prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Love Jihad is a real menace bedevilling non-Muslim women….
Even as Wikipedia labels Love Jihad as a conspiracy theory concocted by the Hindutva supporters, and ipso facto dismiss the trials and tribulations faced by thousands of its victims, it describes the phenomenon of ‘reverse Love Jihad’ as an “organised movement” carried out by right-wing groups….
Wellington says
Wikipedia also describes Jihad Watch as “a far-right, anti-Muslim blog operated by Robert B. Spencer which has been widely criticized for misrepresenting Islam and Muslims and spreading conspiracy theories.”
So, consult this “source of information” with much scrutiny and skepticism. It’s OK on something like ancient Greek and Roman history but Wikipedia reveals its true colors with articles on sundry subjects, especially those related to more recent times.
gravenimage says
Spot on, Wellington. I only trust Wikipedia for general information on completely apolitical issues–and even then, only as a starting point, details to be confirmed elsewhere when possible.
mortimer says
Wikipedia stands with the oppressors of the Islamic world.
The people who run Wikipedia have no excuse for not researching the ‘Love Jihad’ imperative, since MOHAMMED COMMANDED it:
Sahih Bukhari 7 62 27 … Mohammed said:
“A woman can be married for religion, her fortune, or her beauty. So marry one for the religion.”
(Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 7, Bk. 62, No. 27)
The above citation means that a Muslim should find a non-Muslim woman to convert in the context of an oppressive, wife-beating Muslim marriage.
gravenimage says
True, Mortimer.
And notice that love is not even listed as one of the reasons to marry. I think that says it all.
mortimer says
Reply to GI re ‘love’:
Ultimately, ‘love’ has nothing to do with Islam.
There are over 400 references in the Koran to hate, over 300 references in the Koran to Allah and FEAR, but there are only 49 references to love. Of these love references, 39 are negative such as the 14 negative references to love of money, power, other gods and status.
Three verses command humanity to love Allah and only 2 verses are about how Allah loves a believer. There are 25 verses about how Allah does NOT love kafirs (disbelievers).
This leaves 5 verses about love. Of these 5 verses, 3 are about loving kin or a Muslim brother. One verse commands a Muslim to give money for the love of Allah. This leaves only one quasi-universal verse about love: give what you love to zakat-charity and even this is contaminated by dualism since Muslim zakat-charity only goes to other Muslims. There are OVER 400 teachings of HATE directed against all disbelievers: Jews, Christians, Idolaters and Kafirs.
So much for love. HATE and FEAR are what Allah demands in the Koran.
gravenimage says
Spot on, Mortimer. Most references to love in the Qur’an are about what Allah does *not* love.
I often say that there is no love in Islam.
Wellington says
One even has to be careful with pure historical matters too, gravenimage, respecting Wikipedia articles. As an example, the Wikipedia article on colonial New Hampshire states that it received “its charter” in 1692. This is false. No royal province (and of the 13 original colonies/states 8 were royal provinces on the eve of the American Revolution) was established by charter except the Massachusetts Bay Province in the 1691 charter which went into effect in 1692. Moreover, New Hampshire became a royal province in 1679, though part of the Dominion of New England from 1686-1689, and yet Wikipedia again errs by asserting that New Hampshire received a charter from Charles II in 1679—no charter for NH was ever issued by Charles II.
Yes, I know this is rather an obscure matter, though by now you know I relish obscurity, but getting small matters wrong ordinarily has a correspondence with getting larger matters wrong—as with JW in general and per this article we have commented on.
mortimer says
Thanks to Wellington for the historical precision. I found this particular issue confusing myself. Wellington has given a clear, SHORT explanation of a complex matter.
gravenimage says
Thank you, Wellington. As I noted, even with non-political matters I just use Wikipedia as a starting point (I only link to it on the rare occasions where an overview is needed and I am pretty sure all points are accurate).
Obviously the worst thing is ideological editorializing (or out and out lying). But general sloppiness there is an issue as well.
Cicero says
It is only okay on historical accounts of Romsn and Greek culture since such culture no longer exist apart from being artefacts in a museum.
The practioners of Greek and Roman culture are no longer alive to contradict or rectify any biased distorted accounts of their own history
gravenimage says
That doesn’t mean that there are no records, Cicero. We don’t know everything, of course, but there is more documentation on most matters than you might think.
Hoi Polloi says
Wonder why I avoid wiki? Islamic teachings, worldly practice, and promised paradise can’t be described as “barbaric and hypersexual?” Why not, wiki?
mortimer says
Wiki paints a HAPPY FACE on the tragedies caused by Islam.
Infidel says
Like Graven mentioned above, I only use it as a starting reference, and then use other sources for more data
Hoi Polloi says
I still read technical information and some history when it’s the sole option but I keep wiki’s sloppiness in mind.
gravenimage says
Wikipedia dismisses Love Jihad in India as ‘Islamophobia,’ but claims ‘Reverse Love Jihad’ against Muslims is real
………………..
“Reverse love Jihad”? What would this even entail? I haven’t heard of any cases of Infidel men preteding to be Muslim to lure Muslim women. Moreover, in many places Muslim women don’t even have enough freedom to meet such men. Then, the claim that Infidels are kidnapping Muslims women and forcing them to renounce Islam is even more absurd. If there were *any* such cases, Muslims would be loudly up in arms.
“Muslim woman returns after marriage to Hindu youth, denies abduction”
A 19-year-old Muslim woman, who went missing in Auraiya along with a Hindu youth in October, has returned home and denied allegations that she was abducted by him, as alleged by her family members, police said on Wednesday.
She told the police that she went away on her own and got married to the 20-year-old Hindu youth, who ran a cellphone shop, last month at an Arya Samaj temple in Delhi, said sub-inspector of Ayana police station Devi Sahay Verma. However, in her statement recorded before the magistrate, she has said she will live with the man only if he converts to Islam.
“In her statement before the magistrate, she said she had gone on her own. She also said that if the youth converts to Islam, she is ready to go with him otherwise she will live with her parents,” said Additional Superintendent of Police, Auraiya, Kamlesh Kumar Dixit…
https://indianexpress.com/article/india/muslim-woman-returns-after-marriage-to-hindu-youth-denies-abduction-7135927/
mortimer says
Yup, young Muslim women who have Hindu boyfriends are often murdered by members of their families along with the Hindu boyfriend.
gravenimage says
Grimly true, Mortimer.
Wellington says
Thanks for that link above, gravenimage. I’d say that young Hindu man is himself in a great deal of trouble because of the wonderful tolerance regularly exhibited by Islam.
gravenimage says
Agree, Wellington. Neither the actions of the Muslim bride or her family bode well for his future. I think a divorce might be the best idea.
Rob R (Brit stuck in Britainistan) says
Guys, Wikipedia is authored and edited by utterly horrendous, self-loathing left wing nerds who live in the basementiest basement that ever existed.
The last vestiges of sane people would have been driven out from there more than 10 years ago now. You’re talking about unimaginably pitiful specimens.
It’s not surprising that they spend all their time sticking up for a religion that gives women no rights, because that would be the only way any of them could ever get laid (although there are plenty of insane “lady” Wikipedophiles as well, I was banned once by a miserable lesbian from San Francisco…)
mortimer says
“Wikipedia dismisses Love Jihad as a conspiracy theory by Hindus, but claims reverse Love Jihad against Muslims is real,”
A perfect case of PSYCHOLOGICAL PROJECTION.
PSYCHOLOGICAL PROJECTION is the technique of defending oneself against the accusation of having unpleasant, immature or neurotic impulses by denying their existence in oneself, while attributing them to others. For example, a person who is rude may accuse other people of being rude. Muslims accuse non-Muslims of doing what Sharia law codifies as proper Islamic behaviors.
Hoi Polloi says
I’ve often wondered if, apart from money’s influence, there are people who fantasize (detached from observed reality) that such a regime would ease some issue they currently experience. Rather like Philip Haney’s observation that muslims who go west join stricter sects because they’re unable to make their own way, as expected in civilized countries.
I suggest it be renamed wickedpedia due to its deceit.
gravenimage says
Yes–there are people who are only “comfortable” when controlled.
Infidel says
One YouTube channel that I follow – ‘Hindu Lives Matter’ – a channel that describes the persecution of Hindus mainly in Bangladesh, but of late, in West Bengal as well, occasionally covers these marriage jihad events as and when they arise. When they do, YouTube attaches a link to Wiki’s YouTube article on the subject that describes it as a conspiracy theory, even if the events described in the video are confirmed by the victim herself
While people do have the sense to ignore Wikipedia, the real problem is the likes of YouTube and others who link to those Wiki ‘articles’ as though they were the last word on the subject
Hoi Polloi says
Thanks for the info. I make a point of subscribing to channels YouTube tries to discredit and of giving clicks to websites that msm and political operatives attempt to handle similarly.
Infidel says
You’re welcome. I normally try to be supportive of such channels as well, except that this one is almost exclusively in Bengali, which makes it difficult for even most Indians to follow, let alone most westerners
Hoi Polloi says
Ha, well I looked at it and can’t understand a word, but youtube’s subscriber count doesn’t know that.
Infidel says
Hoi Polloi
??
James Lincoln says
Wikipedia is, to put it mildly, an “interesting” news source.
Some things, it does very well:
If you want the specs on a ’63 Corvette, or the detailed results of the 1986 Masters golf tournament, it’s spot on.
Anything political, however, and it takes a hard left turn – either by what it leaves in our what it leaves out.
I use Wikipedia only for the things that is useful for.
In other words, reader beware…
Keith O says
Why is it still being called “love jihad”?
There is no love involved. This is simply forced conversion through abduction and rape.
Those who have the courage to resist are raped more and then murdered. They are probably the lucky ones.
Those who convert are subjected to a lifetime of slavery, misery and rape. They cannot escape as the rapist will have them sent back by the courts.
If the family rescues them, they will be hunted down by a muslim mob and murdered.
So, no, there is no “love” involved.
Infidel says
Keith
This is an aspect noticed by OpIndia last year, and an attempt was made to address it here. As I noted then, even that term is inadequate, since ‘grooming’ is something one associates w/ dog shows and derby’s, rather than women
I prefer to call it marriage jihad, but in reality, it varies depending on where it’s carried out. In India, where once a woman is married, she’s off-limits to anyone else, marriage is usually enough for these thugs: over the next several months, they may rape her or pimp her around until she’s completely damaged, and then she’s a complete outcast in society – can’t return to her parents, and dare not return to her ‘in-laws’. In the West, where marriage is not an impediment for a woman getting out of an ugly situation, it’s usually rape that is tried out, so that the woman can be emotionally damaged. So either Marriage Jihad or Rape Jihad is a more appropriate term for it
And you’re right: there’s no love involved. It’s rare that you’ll see a woman who’s been so married and converted lives the rest of her life happily, albeit in a muslim setting. It usually ends up in a place where suicide is the best option
Infidel says
Sorry, I meant to end the tag after my first sentence
gravenimage says
Yes–no love involved. *At best* it is deception, and goes downhill from there to kidnapping, rape, threats of murder, and forced marriage.
latha says
There is something called “Sexual jihad” in Wikipedia :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_jihad
Infidel says
And it’s completely different. It’s something like muslim women do to recharge the batteries of male jihadists. It’s what Shamima Begum and her ilk did for ISIS in Syria
Whereas this ‘Love Jihad’ (I prefer the term ‘Rape Jihad’) is something that muslim men do to non-muslim women to seduce them either into marriage or sex, and then to force them to convert to islam.
Two completely different jihads
gravenimage says
Yes–completely different.
Jayell says
Isn’t ‘Love Jihad’ a crude synonym for ‘rape’?
Infidel says
Well, it starts w/ muslim guys trying to seduce non-muslim girls into first marriage or sex, depending on the cultural background of the non-muslims in question
mgoldberg says
‘An American Bride in Kabul- by Prof Phyllis Chesler, 2014, is the actual events of Prof Chesller’s life as a 20yo NYC girl who married an Afgan man and went to Afganistan in 1960 with him. To quote from the page…’Few westerners will ever be able to understand Muslim or Afghan society unless they are part of a Muslim family. Twenty years old and in love, Phyllis Chesler, a Jewish-American girl from Brooklyn, embarked on an adventure that has lasted for more than a half-century. In 1961, when she arrived in Kabul with her Afghan bridegroom, authorities took away her American passport. Chesler was now the property of her husband’s family and had no rights of citizenship. Back in Afghanistan, her husband, a wealthy, westernized foreign college student with dreams of reforming his country, reverted to traditional and tribal customs. Chesler found herself unexpectedly trapped in a posh polygamous family. She fought against her seclusion and lack of freedom, her Afghan family’s attempts to convert her from Judaism to Islam, and her husband’s wish to permanently tie her to the country through childbirth. Drawing upon her personal diaries, Chesler recounts her ordeal, the nature of gender apartheid―and her longing to explore this beautiful, ancient, and exotic country and culture….”
Now… this was a person who became one of the experts on the issues and is now an emeritus prof of psychology. The denial of the Left in disallowing any discussion of the Indian examples, like all the other nations of the world with the exact same issues is not merely problematic- it is simply historically absurd. The problems of course are that we are facing the ‘iron curtain’ of information correctness, controlled by the digital overlords, who favor the left and disallow dissention from those views.
Infidel says
A true masochist at heart… Least she should have done was read up the ‘culture’ that she was marrying into
gravenimage says
Actually, Phyllis Chesler is *anything* but a masochist–she is also an Anti-Jihadist.
And few Westerners knew much about Islam in 1960–especially if the guy seemed Westernized. The same was true of Betty Mahmoody (of “Not Without My Daughter” fame) in the 1970s.
Both were shocked when their seemingly modern and decent husbands reverted to Islamic barbarians. Now some of us are familiar with this common phenomenon–but not at the time.
Cicero says
In the past couple of weeks a young Hindu girl ran away from home in Kerala to co- habit with her Muslim lover.
Her community went as a group to encourage her to return home. The young couple were hiding out in the middle of a Muslim dominated area . Within minutes 100 Muslim men arrived to prevent the girl’s community from taking her home.
The police were called and , as they were questioning the young muscly Muslim and the Hindu girl he was filming the police as cool as a cucumber. The girl was sullen and refused to return to her family.
The girl’s family are practising Hindus . Father is a professor at a local college and a Congress politician. They are very wealthy and the young woman in question is their only child
The girl used to travel on the train daily to attend her engineering course at college. The Muslim lover is a vegetable seller. The relationship began there.
James Lincoln says
This will likely not end well, Cicero.
gravenimage says
Likely not…
Infidel says
If her father is a Congress politician, why would he object to his daughter marrying or cohabiting w/ a muslim? After all, that’s the secular party that thinks that Hindus are as bad as muslims, and that the latter are just victims of society. I was initially sympathetic to the parents, but the moment I read that one of them was a Congress politician (or even if he had been a Leftist politician), that sympathy evaporated. And in this case, the girl probably voluntarily eloped, since she probably had been taught throughout her life that Hindus and muslims are the same, worship the same god, blah blah blah