Talk:Mujahideen/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Non-POV

I removed the phrase " because they are terrorists."< from the line in the second paragraph talking about western usage of the term, for obvious reasons.(RogerTheNew

Comment

I removed the sentence about blowback drawing parallels between Afghani mujahideen turning against the US and Germany supporting Bolsheviks who, supposedly, turned against them & went on to occupy East Germany. There is nothing parallel between these two historical situations. In addition, there are better examples of this "blowback" effect (US & Iran, US & Greece, etc.). Red Plum 05:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

This needs some of the less "freedom fighter" aspects added: The mujahideen are well-known to have engaged in brutal war crimes and mass killing, particularly of those from rival tribal groups (Abdullah Shah's massacres of ethnic Hazaras are among the most notorious). This is why the Taliban driving the jihadi commanders out of power was so popular. --Delirium 01:49, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't the same form of the word "mujahideen" used throughout the article? An alternative form is used in the section "Mujahideen in Iraq". I am considering changing it. Doogee 16:48, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of Osama bin Laden in the section on the Afghani mujahideen? He was certainly an influence.

Osama Bin Laden was not really a significant figure in the Soviet-Afghan conflict, and he did not fight alongside the afghan mujahideen, he was in an Arab-only group of a few hundred guerillas called the MAK. The MAK was distinct from the Afghan Mujahideen. I agree the article should mention Bin Laden, but it should clarify the extent of his involvement, which was to provide Saudi funding and weapons to an Arab group of Mujahideen. It is important not to generalize all Mujahideen or Muslim combatants in the Afghan-Soviet war as being the same. There were many competing factions and Bin Laden's faction was fairly peripheral. Walterego 20:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

See also

This has a rather odd "See also" section. Needs sorting out.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 00:31, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, this article is incorrect. As a supporter of the Afghan resistance, we never worked with Bin Laden or any of his associates. Bin Laden was an enemy of our efforts and this article completely compromises the integrity of the anti-Soviet forces. Whoever wrote it owes the freedom fighters an apology.

This is true! This paragraph has serious flaws:
A wealthy Saudi named Osama bin Laden was a prominent mujahedeen organizer and financier; his Maktab al-Khadamat (MAK) (Office of Order) funnelled money, arms, and Muslim fighters from around the world into Afghanistan, with the assistance and support of the American, Pakistani, and Saudi governments. In 1988, bin Laden broke away from the MAK with some of its more militant members to form Al-Qaida, in order to expand the anti-Soviet resistance effort into a worldwide Islamic fundamentalist movement.
There needs to be paragraphs of credit to the fighters who fought for years before Osama and Ayman al-Zawahiri decided this was a good place to launch propaganda and train fighters (about 400 at it's height, but that is from a biased source and I believe it. I can't edit articles about that issue...). I have sources, some from the BBC documentary "The Rise of Politics of Fear". I hope that others can use that as a place to start research. There needs to be credit for a man (who's name I can't find) who fought the Soviets for years and was killed by Ayman al-Zawahiri or his associates to plant Osama as a figurehead. They weren't as successful as this article leads you to belive. Osama needs to be put in the timeline. It's a grave error that us Americans don't know more about the real events that took place, and who is really responsible for the Soviets loss (the Soviets themselves, not Osama bin Laden). Sorry I'm ranting. JoeHenzi 05:48, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And doesn't "Khadamat" mean "Services"--Khidmaath, actually.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:20, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)


JoeHenzi is right, The US never funded Bin Laden. I'm getting this from Steve Coll's "Ghost Wars."

I recommend you read "Perfect Soldiers" by Terry McDermott. It is really good and sheds much clarity on the mujahedeen, Islamism, Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and other misunderstood subjects. A-Jay

title

shouldn't this be at mujahid (the singular)? dab (ᛏ) 8 July 2005 15:05 (UTC)


I attended a lecture at the University of Nebraska Lincoln titled "Afghanistan and Lessons Learned" by Roy Gutman on Monday, November 8, 2004. In this lecture Mr. Gutman did make a distinction between mujahideen and the so called “freedom fighters”. I thought this distinction to be very important to understanding the issue. I hope I have remembered correctly.

A contrast should be drawn between the national and foreign fighters in the Afghan-Soviet conflict. The national Afghan forces should be seen as defenders of their country form outside invasion. These fighters where allied with the mujahideen or the jihadists. These mujahideen where foreign born, and had among their ranks Saudis (Osama Bin Laden) Egyptians and many others who answered the fatwa issued by radical Islamists in their home mosques. These two groups the national and foreign fighters worked together to defeat the Soviet occupation. The groups did however remain distinct through out the war. Conflicts among the groups caused the stratification of the country. I believe the Northern Alliance was composed mostly of “freedom fighters” or nationals. I also believe the Taliban was composed of the international jihadists. These distinctions are not black and white. I think some nationals may have joined the jihad, for instance. However, if I am correct here it would be possible that the United States funded only the national forces and did not give support to the jihadists under Osama Bin Laden. It is unlikely that the jihadists would have accepted support from the United States or that they would have required that support (many rich Saudis supported anti-Soviet forces).

Mr. Gutman spoke of a book to be published on the subject. I am anticipating its release. 7.13.2004



DON'T KID YOUR SELF Pre-collapse of USSR - The Christain God fearing USA called upon God Fearing Muslims to fight against Godless Soviets. It was a natural alliance, belivers in God against Godless people. Post-USSR, The Military-Industrial Complex called the USA, needed a new enemy to sustain itself and came up with the War against Islam / Terror. Something similar happened in WWII, where anti-facist forces, Communist & Democrats united against the Nazi's. As soon as the first war ened the second (Cold War) began. Even now we are being prepared for a War against China, once we win (if thats possible) the war against Islam/Terror.

Mujahideen in Iraq

-Their goal is to use sharia and set up a theocracy in order to oppose the U.S. backed "democratically elected" President.-

That sentence concerns me enough that I stuck the section-NPOV tag on there. I may just be reading too much into those quotation marks, but that is the way someone would indicate sarcasm about the elections, resulting in a sentence that reads "the U.S.-backed so-called democratically elected President".

Also, I'm leery of "Their goal" at the start of the sentence without a quote to back it up. Surely these Mujahideen have stated what their goal is, in a nice citeable or quotable form. We should cite or quote it, then. Otherwise, ascribing motives to people strikes me as a big no-no for an encyclopedia. The Literate Engineer 04:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm removing the small section entirely, since it is a reference to the Iraqi Insurgency, which is not typically associated with the Mujahadeen - and is not comprised of any of the same people. There are very few groups in Iraq that have even tried to ride the popularity of the Mujahadeen, and none of them have been shown to have any connection with the 'original' Mujahadeen as the term is used. You can't just claim that anybody brown-skinned with a gun is a Mujahadeen >:\ Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 03:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The rise of the Taliban is discussed twice - in the beginning & end - of the Afghan section, and differently each time. They need to be somehow combined. Knotnic 18:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we all should read "Dune" by Frank Herbert. This gentleman's view seemed to be ahead of his time in seeing our world's future struggles for resources and property. No doubt there are individuals whom claim to be the "prophet's messenger" all being false. It is up to those fighting and those 'standing-by' to end this Abomination...lest it comsume us and our entire civilization. What I am speaking here gentlemen and ladies is a 1 for 1 Call...We give the Terrorist what they want and WE get what We the People want: "Bin Ladin for President Bush" a Fair Trade that will save countless lives. We have initiated a 100+ year war for religion that will make the horrors of WWII seem timid by post-modern standards. In the not so distant future we will have to decide the fate of our children and our childrens childrens. That is how I see the current situation. Interfaith discussions and New U.N. Elections should follow afterward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.100.189 (talk) 07:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Mujahideen in Bosnia

I removed the statement linking Bosnian mujahideen with "brutality" and "war crimes" against Serbs - as that's beavily POV. To maintain neutrality, we cannot state this as fact but must treat it as an allegation. Perhaps a different NPOV statement should be constructed if anyone wants to keep it in there. I have removed the sentence as I can't find a decent reference from a book/website that isn't heavily POV. -- Buyoof 09:01, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

  • You shouldn't have. This is also interesting to see: Click. It was on a British channel I believe. Regards, --Krytan 03:20, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
So, wait, Mr. Buyoof, stating that someone comitted brutalities and war crimes is heavily POV (well, you actually said beavily, I'm not sure what that means)? This is no allegation, it has been proven, the video is there, just look at it. Did you see the mujahideen telling the bosniaks to let him kill the Serb POWs? I consider that a brutality AND a war crime, and so does the UN war crimes tribunal. --serbiana - talk 23:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Serbian dog! No Muslim can ever be accused of war crimes in Bosnia! It is a well known fact that you Serbian pigs raped & killed Muslims in your attempt to "ethnically cleanse" the region. Fear Mujahideen...we will never stand by & allow our people to be oppressed. I pray that every Serbian & there whore mothers burn in the flames of hell for the war crimes they have committed against innocent Muslims!!! 

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.201.224 (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Spelling of Mujahideen

Further to the comments two years ago, it irks me slightly to see variable spelling throughout the article - while the title is "Mujahideen" and the initial lines refer to it with that spelling, it puzzlingly reverts to "Mujahedeen" for most of the article below that point. I changed it last week but a bot changed it back. Cyril Washbrook 07:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I've corrected mujahedeen to mujahideen in most instances (except those that were intended for illustrative purposes). Cyril Washbrook 02:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I also don't understand why the article resides at the plural form rather than the singular as is general practice on Wikipedia. dab (ᛏ) 13:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

fighting each other

Does someone want to say why exactly they were fighting each other, after fighting as comrades? It's not merely because of a Sunni/Shia difference, is it? Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 07:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Tagged article

This article needs some major cleanup. It is chock full of poor grammar and puctuation, unsourced claims, and POV writting. Allah is blushing. L0b0t 13:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Name collision issue

I discovered that "Muja" redirects to here. However, it is also the name of a town in Ethiopia. Just how often is "Muja" used as a shorter form of "Mujahid"? Should I fix this redirect -- or turn it into a disambiguation link? -- llywrch 02:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Mujahideen practiced terrorism

This is derived from Colliers Yearbook and from the Russian General Staff's study on the war in Afghanistan[1]

In the border region with Pakistan, the mujahideen would often launch 800 rockets per day. Between April 1985 and Janaury 1987, they carried out over 23,500 shelling attacks on government targets. The mujahideen surveyed firing positions that they normally located near villages within the range of Soviet artillery posts. They put the villagers in danger of death from Soviet retaliation. The mujahideen used mine warfare heavily. Often, they would enlist the services of the local inhabitants and even children.

The Mujahideen leaders paid great attention to sabotage and terrorist activities. The more comon types of sabotage included damaging power lines, knocking out pipelines, radio stations, blowing up government office buildings, air terminals, hotels, cinemas, and so on. From 1985 through 1987, over 1800 terrorist acts were recorded

15-21 March 1979: 200 Soviet civilians and advisers are butchered in Herat

1 January 1980: Soviet citizens are hacked to pieces in Kandahar

March 1982: a bomb exploded at the Ministry of Education, damaging several buildings.

March 1982: a widespread power failure darkened Kabul when a pylon on the transmission line from the Naghlu power station was blown up.

June 1982: a column of about 1,000 young party activists sent out to work in the Panjshir valley were ambushed within 20 miles of Kabul, with heavy loss of life.

4 September 1985: terrorists shot down a domestic Bakhtar Airlines plane as it took off from Kandahar airport, murdering all 52 people aboard.

9 October 1987: 27 people were murdered by a car bomb set off by terrorists in Kabul —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.110.222.33 (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

Pakistani/Kashmiri Section

This section seems to have floundered into a POV assertion at the bottom, somewhat ignoring the history of the conflict of Jammu and Kashmir. It should make note of the historical issues of the region, rather than simply ask "What if they had been given their choice in the matter?" The way it is generally understood, Kashmir wished to remain neutral, hence the reason it wanted to be a separate state: to avoid being party to the conflict siding with either India and Pakistan. Yet war was foisted on them by either Pakistan or India, depending on your choice of aggressor in the tale. Or both, if you sympathize with the plight of neutral seperatist natives. --Petercorless 23:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I tried to edit out some of the POV from this part of the article, but there are still many assertions, which I left intact, but want someone to contribute citations to prove. I did remove some of the speculation regarding peace between the two nations. We should stick to historical and provable assertions, and avoid philosophizing and "What ifs?" At least, in Wikipedia entries. That is more appropriate for a forum. Good thoughts on wishing for peace between the two nations! --Petercorless 00:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Any sympathy to any one is POV --- Skapur 04:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Human compassion for all mankind definitely is POV, but I'd consider it humane and ethical. However, my comments are here on the talk page, not in the article. For the article I remained neutral POV. --Petercorless 06:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Uncorroborated assertion: "As of today the Mujahideen are led by the Abdur Raheem Tribe, Mujahideen General Yassin Abdur Raheem Idbihi has 600,000-750,000 Mujahideen fighters under his command." I'd like to excise this as being rather unsubstantiated. I know that there are allegations that India has 700,000 troops in the area, but are there really this many Mujahideen? It's been marked for citation. I cannot find reference to the mention of the leader, nor a citation of this number of insurrectionist troops in the area. Any thoughts? --Petercorless 19:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Inflation of an uncorroborated assertion? "Only after a few months the Human Rights Watch were told that there are not 3,200 Mujahideen, but instead there are about 800,000 Mujahideen fighter in Pakistan alone and are led by a man known as Mujhaideen General Yassin Abdur Raheem Idbihi." Where is this coming from, and how reliable is this claim? --Petercorless 06:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
After waiting for weeks for someone to source the statements above, and watching the creeping inflation of anonymous claims, I decided to excise the above. I am certainly willing to see some more recent figure than since 1996 for estimated number of mujahideen in Afghanistan/Pakistan, but it needs to be cited properly. Please avoid anonymous unsourced claims. --Petercorless 06:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I really have to protest the way Pakistan's "Mujahid force" is portrayed in the article as not true mujahideen. This is simply, objectively incorrect. In Classical Islam, the mujahideen of the various Caliphates were considered valid only because they were a product of governance and not simply vigilantism. The notion that violent jihad was an individual, personal duty (fard 'ayn) as opposed to a collective one(fard kifayah) is a vary modern idea, emerging for the first time during the 1920s in the Muslim Brotherhood movement of Egypt. Therefore, the "Mujahid force" is composed of legitimate mujahideen in a way that paramilitary groups are not. I also resent being penalized for pointing this out even if I, granted, do not know enough about the way Wikipedia works to have contributed in an allowed way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.8.254 (talk) 00:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

CIA

I am surprised there is no mention of the CIA. Through the rest of wikipedia, it's hard to find a mention of the Mujahideen without a mention of the CIA. Chuck 04:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to edit as you feel appropriate; keep it straightforward. --Petercorless 04:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Straight Forward: It is common knowledge that the United States (Under President Regan) provided Ams and training to the Mujahideen and their splinter cells that were fighting a common enemy: the Godless Russians. We have no one but ourselves to blame for the war on terrorism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.100.189 (talk) 07:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Above comment is the most rediculous thing I have ever read. Go play metal gear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.27.1.18 (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Somalia

I returned a bunch of exised text regarding Somalia. Someone tried to sneak that whole section out. --Petercorless 03:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Mujahideen in the Balkans

I'm concerned about the neutrality of this section. The referenced source, the Center for Peace in the Balkans, isn't even slightly impartial. Its "analysis" seems to be diatribes against Bosniak forces, specifically ethnic Muslim or Croats. Can we find some better sources for these claims? Shermozle 03:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not adverse. Pitch in! Feel free to start Google searching for better sources or hit the library. --Petercorless 06:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I've now replaced the text on the Bosnian Mujahideen based on the article with that name. I replaced the text because it mainly dealt with how the mujahideen were used in Serbian and Croatian propaganda (which they certainly were, but that's not what the article is about). However, I'm not so sure about the Kosovo & Macedonia section. There seem to be quite a lot of references to the Center for Peace in the Balkans, which I'm not sure are appropriate. I'll let it stand until I have checked it through more thoroughly though. CheersOsli73 (talk) 10:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Saddam Hussein a Mujahidin?

Someone put Saddam Hussein in the list of Famous Mujahidin. Referring to Saddam Hussein as a mujahidin is just outrageous. That is preposterous. If anyone knows the history of the life of Saddam Hussein knows that he and his Iraqi Ba`athist party were strictly secular and even anti-religious. The only time Saddam Hussein started to show any outward displays of religiosity was during the First Gulf War in 1990-1, and he did so to try to use Islam to unify his people and get the Muslim world behind him and against the United States. It was at this time that "Allah Akbar" appeared on the Iraqi flag. Saddam's newfound religiosity in 1990-1 was just a facade and a vain attempt to unify his people and get the Arab and the Muslim worlds on his side. If someone knows how, please remove Saddam Hussein from the "Famous Mujahidin" List or contact Wikipedia to inform them of this highly offensive listing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.150.48.156 (talk) 02:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Indeed, quite so! Saddam Hussein was a deadly enemy to many wahabbi, especially the ones with Bin Laden. Saddam Hussien was probably their most important enemy? (Followed by Iran as their next?)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ind2.jpg

Image:Ind2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Word History = Etymology?

Isn't "Etymology" a more correct title than "Word history"?

Introcution

I don't believe this item is a word used to describe a "large douchebag", as indicated 160.129.143.90 23:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC) Anonymous User. June 20th 2007

Word History: Typo

Shouldn't this be "Holy War" instead of "Holy Way?"

Mujahedins in Bosnia is more proper

Kosovo is not Bosnia. 2000 mujahedins in Kosovo???? Bin laden in Albania???? How serbian of you. You even have posted pictures of KLA soldiers in the gallery.

Barayev image

He is just a chechen rebel not a foreign mujahideen.

Mujahideen is plural, mujahid is singular. But you are right, Barayev was a Chechen nationalist, not a Jihadi per se. For as far as I'm concerned the gallery can go altogether, I think it's nonsense. ForrestSjap 06:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Barayev and his group was many things at once, including a ransom kidnapping gang and independent guerilla group (and at times the Russian collaborators too). They had lots of common with this Palestinian group/gang which kidnapped a BBC man. --HanzoHattori 07:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I think you are confusing Arbi with Movsar, the image in the gallery was one of Movsar; the commander of the SPIR during the Moscow theater siege. ForrestSjap 08:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Movsar was just a successor of Arbi. He was younger and less brutal, submitted to Basayev, and was possibly manipulated by the man known as Abukabar. His hostage taking was a kidnapping too, even if ideologically-driven. Anyway, you are right in one thing: His Moscow event Islamist image, complete with the Arab-style burkas for women, was just a theatre. --HanzoHattori 09:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

And I meant Army of Islam (Palestine). --HanzoHattori 09:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Why this attempt to portray Albanians rebels as mujahedins?????

There is an apparent attemp to give the label "mujahedin", "islamic fighters" , "jihadist" to KLA, NLA soldiers that were only regional rebel groups that fought for minority rights and indipendence. Even the gallery has KLA soldiers and someone posted an albanian flag with arabic script giving the description "Flag of the albanian mujahedins"??????????????? User talk:83.235.221.242 3 July 2007 (UTC)


Excuse me mate but no ones is trying to portray the Albanians as anything I mean I’am an Albanian my self and have witnessed the war, and I saw the Mujahideens with my own eyes but that cant be used as a source now day that’s why there has been sources added that prove Albanians had help from Muslims around the world, this does not portray us as anything we Also had Christian Italians, Germans & Croats who fought for us and I’am great full for all of them, but just because you don’t like it does not mean you can take it off the article is full sources and matches all links and I have provided visual proof.
Maybe you should read what a Mujahid is first because you don’t seem to know, Albanians fought for their land, people and religion against the occupying oppressing Orthodox Serbs and Macedonians who at that time was considers and an Crusade by Milosevic and Serbia against the Muslims of Balkans and Muslims from all over came to lend a hand, because Albanians world wide are over 90% Muslims and in Kosova the Albanian population is 98.7% Muslim & in Macedonia the Albanian population is 99% Muslim.
Also many you should Google people like Jakup Hasipi and read upon them and you will see what they were instead of jut vandalizing the article. And by the way I do appreciate that you have followed the rule and are discussing your, also don’t forget to sign your pots in discussion, and I would suggest that you get a user name "Iv token the advantage of doing it for you this time". Klass 11:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


I am afraid you are totally ignorant in the matter. It shows by you posting photos of KLA and NLA fighters in the mujahedin gallery. Mujahedins are islamic warriors fighting for establishment of Islamic country or Islamic law. KLA and NLA were nationalistic movements. As for the flag it is a symbol for Albanian muslims seen in mosques. This flag did not existed or flown by "Albanian mujahedins". User talk:62.103.23.224 3 July 2007 (UTC)


Again this applies to you please sign your posts & get a user name.
I think it is you who is ignorant when it comes to this matter I’am guessing your from Albania and have never been to Kosova in your life, which explains a lot about your view of Kosova. And again you don’t seem to know what a MUJAHID is and there is photos of Fighters in the KLA and there were many Albanian & Arab, Asian, African…etc Muslim fighters in the KLA they all fought under the name of KLA as they didn’t want to make separate units and KLA was a nationalistic movement for Independence but it integrated with religious matters around the end of 1998 when mover than 1000 Mujahideens entered Kosova and brought with them many supplies.
The Bosnian movement started as a nationalistic one but like KLA it turned religious.Klass 11:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I usually try to avoid edit wars. I thought this was just a case of removal vandalism — but apparently it's more complicated. Unfortunately, I've accidentally violated the three revert rule and so have reverted two of my own reverts. I'd warn other people to also keep an eye out for that rule. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 12:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


All i see is photos in bad resolution that nothing connects them with the kosovo war. It is pure imgaination and propaganda added to some photos taken by various conflicts but not from kosovo. The beautiful part is the "African mujahedins in Kosovo" who seems to be in chechnya judging by his camouflage. KLA turned religious?????? KLA was what it was but never changed the nationalistic agenda with a religious one. It was and remained a patriotic movement till the end. KLA never attacked churchs , monasteries, nuns or monks who were without protection during the war. There isn't any photo or record of KLA soldier flying islamic banners. Kosovars are not known to be religious zealots or practise religion that strongly which applies also to christian Albanians. Kosovars are only known to be hard-line nationalist in general.


Yep let me back up Angus here. Edit warring will achieve nothing. Hash it out on the talk page. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 12:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


If you can read Albanian or Arabic them I'am pretty sure you can read the plack of the dead Mujahid and I’am sure even you cant dispute that is from Kosova or knowing you probably can you’d say its an illusion...LoL Mate the photos fwere taken from a video and posted into different military forums you can find many photos of Mujahideens in Bosnia & Kosova & especially in Macedonia conflict. And I can see how well your judgment is, if you know anything about military which it is obvious you don’t, you would see that the African Mujahideen is wearing YUGOSLAVIAN yellow branch pattern camouflauge similar to this guys http://www.tridentmilitary.com/New-photos16/Yugoslav-photo-1.jpg so I guess I proved you wrong there, the quality of that photo is very much from the 90’s video cameras. Hahhahah Still I can see your ignorance so you are saying being a MUJAHID you must attack churches you are really ignorant mate and I’am glad this article is under protection and it will be reverted to my version. Mate again don’t speak about Kosova a place you have never been to Kosova is very religious, and you don’t have to go far to look just look at one of the hundreds of videos on youtube showing mosques filled with thousands of Albanians. You can say Albania is not that religious but Kosova is, Kosovars are not hard line nationalist but people who want to live free in their own land you know so little about your neighbors Klass 12:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you cut out all the personal attacks please! Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Perhaps you can answer some of my questions? What makes soldiers mujahideen? What is the definition? Does the war have to be holey war? Also why is the image gallery needed at all? In what way does it advance the article? I can't read anything but English so can you please translate the plack for me? Do you have a any written sources for your claims above? Sources obviously trump opinions. Is there any kind of compromise between you two? There seems to be some personal animosity but surely that can be put aside? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 12:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

So Kosovars go to mosques. Please explain me how does that make them religious nuts??It was the Bosnian conflict that turned religious at some point when the people got really desperate but the Kosovo war remained purely nationalistic from the Kosovar side. It was the serbs that shelled mosques and kept flying orthodox symbols during the war like they did in Croatia and Bosnia. For Serbs it was some kind of "crusade" to get rid of Kosovo muslim populution. KLA soldiers did not "Allahu Akbar " their victories which is what you are trying to sell. The NLA outright forbid any kind of foreign volunters from any country they might have been. The only "outsiders" were Kosovars fighting in NLA were ex-KLA veterans. THe camouflage was not yugoslavian at all. Give me the link of the photo you posted an i will provide photos that it was not yugoslavian. KLA prefered the german, swiss, serbian and woodland and they would provide any foreigners with these camo and not old uniforms that saw limited use in Bosnia. You must be really eager to include Albanians rebels in this article cause you are the only person i have encountered to claim he has photos of "mujahedins in kosovo". I have searched countless time for this so called "arab mujahedins" fighting in Kosovo and they all exist in nationalistic and religious Serbian sites and even those sites do not have any images in their article. But here you are with a photo of an arab dressed in traditional outfit and the characteristing arab headscurf with an ak-47 saying he is in kosovo. Obviously a Palestinian or Iraqi. And the best part is the African mujahedin . You have gone a step even further in your hunt for ghosts. The apotheosis is your cheap photoshoped flag labeled as "flag of the Albanian mujahedins" which is a merge of Albanian two headed eagle with some Arabic scripts. So childish!!!!!!! Not only these mujahedins you mention did not exist but you even photoshoped a flag for them.

Hee is the photo of an catholic Kosovar field commander and in the depth his muslim Kosovar unit. http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/2193/zsrgnk0.jpg The picture of Virgin Mary hangs in the wall. This proves your ignorance. Yes i am glad this article is protected cause you cannot add more propaganda.

That photo only proves that the soldier in it might be Christian's or maybe that is a Serbian house they raided thats why there is the photo either way there are countless other photos that were here which show Mujahideens both foreign and Albanian, this is not trying to portray Albanians as nothing but its just giving the truth 15 sources cant be wrong.80.80.170.123 (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree here, to my knowledge there is nothing to connect the KLA/UCK with mujahideen or volunteers from Islamic countries. I believe this should definately be taken out (unless some very good sources can be produced).Osli73 (talk) 14:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope the article should stay I'm Albanian and I accept this I have no idea why these other guys cant do the same even though there is overwhelmingly evidence that there was Islamic volunteers in Kosova & Macedonia, 15 sources... not all can be lying although I do admit there is some exaggeration of Bin laden being in Kosova and son but that is not included here as its blatantly false but the fact is there was Mujahideens in Kosova both of Albanian & Non Albanian ethic background, so until some once can provide 20 sources against what is written then we can remove it other wise we will keep it as its fully sourced, Apart from the 15 sources I have also seen several hundred Mujahideens in Drenica region during 1998 with my own eyes but I'm fully aware that is not proof but just though Id mentioned it and that is why I put up 15 sources. 80.80.170.124 (talk) 06:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Protection

The page has now been fully protected. Try to reach consensus and then request unprotection (at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection). Pax:Vobiscum 12:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Methinks whole Gallery section should be euthanased, and some images possibly used in the article. As of KLA it was nationalist and some of them were in fact Catholic. --HanzoHattori 23:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, the captivity photo of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as an iconic representative of the mujahideen. I don't like this guy at all and I think he's mad, but the muj typically don't look like a random hobo. Who else now, maybe Richard Colvin Reid who looks like a crazy old hippie? --HanzoHattori 14:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Mullah Krekar in Norway

"The leader of Ansar al-Islam, Mullah Krekar is receiving financial and legal support from the Norwegian government, and is enjoying full freedom in Norway."

This is at best a truth with modifications. Yes, like all inhabitants of Norway he is entitled to legal aid and social welfare. He does most certainly not receive any additional support from the government. At present he is expelled from Norway, and the the Supreme Court has ruled that he is a threat to national security. But since Norway has laws against deporting people to states where they risk being subjected to imprisonment without a fair trial, or where there's a danger that they will be tortured or killed, he still remains in Norway. --89.8.7.137 04:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Bosnian Mujahideen

In fact the term Bosnian Mujahideen is used to describe the volunteers from Islamic countries who fought in Bosnia during the 1992-1995 war.

"The Afghan-Bosnian Mujahideen Network in Europe" is the title of both [http://www.amazon.com/Al-Qaidas-Jihad-Europe-Afghan-Bosnian-Network/dp/1859738079 a book] and a research paper (presented at a conference held by the Swedish National Defence College's Center for Assymetric Threat Studies (CATS) in Stockholm in May 2006 at the request of Dr. Magnus Ranstorp - former director of the St. Andrews University Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence - and now Chief Scientist at CATS). The paper is available for download on the CATS official website.

Evan F. Kohlmann is a terrorism researcher and a consultant to the Nine/Eleven Finding Answers Foundation and runs the Web site [www.globalterroralert.com]. In addition to the above report and book he has been published by several respected journals, including Foreign Affairs, a journal published by the US Council on Foreign Relations.

I agree that there are other terms for these fighters, "El Mujaheed" or just "Mujahideen" are often referred to in media[2][3] and [4] as well as by the Bosnian courts in their indictments of former Bosnian Mujahideen suspected of various war crimes.

So, Dragon of Bosnia, please do not delete the article for on spurious and, I suspect, ideologically/politically, motivated reasons.Osli73 08:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

There were no Bosnian Mujahideen, just particular units such as El-Mujahid. According to ICTY, Serb propaganda fabricated much of these stories so this is not a right place for that. For example there is the whole article about Serb propaganda in the Stakić verdict:The media

One example of such propaganda was the derogatory language used for referring to non-Serbs such as mujahedin, Ustasa or Green Berets, although at the time there were no foreign volunteers in Bosnia.

Read: Wikipedia:No original research:

  1. Wikipedia is not a venue for publishing, publicizing or promoting original research in any way. No original research, or NOR, is a corollary to two other policies:
  2. Our original major content policy, neutral point of view (NPOV) encourages editors to add undisputed facts, including unbiased accounts of various people's views. It has traditionally forbidden editors from inserting their own views into articles, and demands that Wikipedia balance the relative prominence of differing viewpoints based on their prominence in the relevant field.
  3. Our verifiability policy (V) demands that information and notable views presented in articles be drawn from appropriate, reliable sources.

Osli73, you were earlier blocked many times because of your behaviour: [5] so I advice you to stop propagating false info/original research.

You shouldn't misuse Wikipedia by uploading unverified photos, too. The war is over, propaganda should be over too. The Dragon of Bosnia 11:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Dragon,

  1. the sources I cite (which you do not contest or mention) do specifically refer to the Bosnian Mujahideen
  2. yes, the Bosnian Mujahideen were often referred to as El Mujahid or El Mujaheed, as I state in the article.
  3. the article is based on verifiable and reliable sources
  4. I agree that Bosnian Mujahideen was a part of Bosnian Serb propaganda during the war. That doesn't mean they did not exist.
  5. 'your' article on the 7th Muslim Brigade is, in my opinion, considerably less NPOV, less well sourced (and not verifiable sources either) and deals more with the Mujahideen as they were used in Serb propaganda than the actual unit.

Osli73 11:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Osli, The sources you cite are not relaible per WP:RS and WP:NOT, and certainly not verifiable per WP:Verifiability.

  • [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1164071/posts JM Berger article from The Premier Conservative News Forum] is an example of WP:NOT content as it is a political forum: "Free Republic is the premier online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America. And we always have fun doing it. Hoo-yah!". According to WP:NOT this shouldn't be here, I don't have to mention the term Bosnian Mujahideen has not been used.
  • Regarding ICTY sources, they are not using the term Bosnian Mujahideen at all, just Mujahideen, or foreign fighters/volunteers. Second, when you use ICTY sources, the verdicts are relaible sources, not indictments according to WP:Verifiability: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."
  • LA Times article doesn't support your claims in introduction. There is a sentence which says: "Beginning in 1992, as many as 4,000 volunteers from throughout North Africa, the Middle East and Europe came to Bosnia to fight Serbian and Croatian nationalists on behalf of fellow Muslims." But your introduction sentence says: "Bosnian Mujahideen (also referred to as El Mujaheed or El Mujahid) is the term often used for the Muslim volunteers to fight on the Bosnian government side during the 1992-1995 Bosnian War. The number of volunteers is estimated to have been about 4,000..." So as you can see from your own source, the sentece you wrote is wrong. The name Bosnian Mujahideen is not a common name. Foreign volunteers is a common name, so this article should be redirected to The role of foreign fighters in the Bosnian war. I have nothing against the use of the term Mujahideen, but you are know making up new terminology adding Bosnian in front of Mujahideen. Also you did't write the exact claim from your source: "4,000 volunteers from throughout North Africa, the Middle East and Europe came to Bosnia to fight Serbian and Croatian nationalists on behalf of fellow Muslims., which means they didn't come to fight on Bosnian government side, but to defend Muslims from Serbian nationalists (this is supported also by ICTY, so how come you didn't include it?). Anyway this is just in case your source is verifiable, but it isn't according to WP:Verifiability: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." You didn't provide the original article, you deceived us including wrong sentence saying it is supported by the source. Regarding the number of foreign volunteers, this newspaper article is less relaible than ICTY documents which state there were 300 volunteers. And ICTY is relaible source, but you decided not to include it in introduction, you were just looking for bigger numbers, which was also part of Serb propaganda.

Regards. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


Osli's reponse: Dragon, I've asked for mediation on the Bosnian Mujahideen article precisely to stop your vandalism of it. Now you are replicating that behavior here, again, without good reason. All of the claims you make above have been answered on the Bosnian Mujahideen talk page and I therefore refer all editors to my answer to your claims there.Osli73 (talk) 21:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

GG, pls see the Bosnian Mujahideen talk page for why the text you are proposing is clearly not appropriate. In short, the text you are proposing is a coatrack on the nature of the Bosnian war, focuses on propaganda rather than the Bosnian mujahideen (giving the false impression that they really did not exist) and finally, the sources are not appropriate.Osli73 (talk) 11:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hanzo, I'm not sure why you replaced the link to the Bosnian Mujahideen article with a link to the more general article on the Bosnian War. I have reverted that deletion. CheersOsli73 (talk) 08:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Hanzo, why do you remove the link to the main article on the Bosnian Mujahideen?Osli73 (talk) 10:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Because here is "the main article", no article has such link. I don't see "main Afghan mujahideen" article, even if there were hundreds of thousands of them in total. I don't see anyone starting aricle on "Iraqi mujahideen" or whatever really. Your persistance is annoying. --HanzoHattori (talk) 11:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Hanzo, this is a general article about mujahideen. However, the Bosnian Mujahideen article deals specifically with the mujahideen in Bosnia. I can't see that a reader of this brief chapter should not be informed about the existence of this article dealing more in detail with the Bosnian Mujahideen. For example, take a look at the Crusades article, which has links to articles on the specific crusades, or the War in Bosnia and Herzegovina which contains links to specific parts of that war, or any other article in Wikipedia for that matter.Osli73 (talk) 12:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Osli, your article is controversial (it is "currently protected from editing until disputes have been resolved"). Come back to promote it when it's not controversial. --HanzoHattori (talk) 12:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hanzo, again,
  • the article Bosnian Mujahideen is protected and under informal mediation because it was being deleted/blanked by The Dragon of Bosnia and Grandy Grandy. That is no reason to delete links and references to it in another article.
  • 'Controversy' (which is in the eye of the beholder) is not a valid reason for deleting links to articles.
  • As for the "mailing list" you refer to, it is copy of the LA Times article. If you see the Talk page on the Bosnian Mujahideen article, you'll see that this is a genuine LA Times article (it's only that the original is in the LA Times archive, which is a pay-per-view service).
  • Finally, if you have any problems with the Bosnian Mujahideen article, you are welcome to participate in the discussion/mediation on that article's talk page.
Osli73 (talk) 12:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is. Please come back when your dispute is resolved, then you might integrate the link into the text - there are no "main articles" here (no Afghan mujahideen - a redirect here, no Iraqi mujahideen, etc), because are not needed. Only you thought one was needed, and this instantly came under heavy criticism. Come back when your article is approved by either consenus or arbitration. --HanzoHattori (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hanzo,
  1. since the Bosnian Mujahideen article deals specifically with the mujahideen in Bosnia there certainly is relevant to provide a link to that article here.
  2. the "heavy criticism" you refer to is from a group of 'Bosniak' editors. Opposition from a group of partisan editors is not reason enough to delete an article. I have yet to see any valid arguments from them.
  3. once again, I asked for the involvement of a third party arbitrator to stop deletion/blanking of the article by the 'Bosniak' editors you referred to above.
Osli73 (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing Islam series info box?

Although the Mujahideen style themselves as religious/Islamic warriors and operate in conjunction with or support from Muslim institutions I don't think it is necessary to include the Islam-series box in the intro as the rest of the article really doesn't deal with Islam as a religion or the religious aspects of mujahideen. Instead, I suggest we replace the Islam box with either a nice picture of Mujahideen or a map of the countries where they have operated (which are rather nicely covered in the article). How about it?Osli73 (talk) 10:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, since no one seems to mind, I will remove it. However, should you disagree, feel free to add it back with a motivation here.Osli73 (talk) 21:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
The term Mujahideen has eveything to do with Islam, the word is derived from the same root as the word jihad, which is a religious concept. The infobox should stay.ForrestSjap (talk) 21:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that the info box should stay.80.80.170.124 (talk) 06:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Osli73, the Islam-series box should be removed. If this article was about Jihad and its rules in Islam then it made sense to put the box there. Then they should not be mentioned as freedom fighters or other names which does not relate to Jihad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xsdnyde (talk • contribs) 07:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Iraq

Deleted, because just wrong (all Sunnis nationalists, Ansar al-Islam not Sunni apparently, etc) and also badly written. Hey, no even mention of Mujahideen Shura Council or Mujahideen Army.

Sunni Mujahideen

A section of the insurgency comprising former elements of Saddam Hussein's regime, Baath party supporters, former Iraqi soldiers and secular Sunnis is often referred to as "Sunni nationalists". Analysts believe that in the wake of the US-led invasion, some former regime figures provided the nascent insurgency with access to regime funds and weapons caches.

In September 2005, an Iraqi court convicted a nephew of the deposed leader of funding insurgents. Commentators have also blamed much of the violence on the decision by former US governor Paul Bremer to disband the Iraqi army in 2003, without disarming it.US forces have faced their greatest challenges in areas of central Iraq - such as the city of Falluja - that had a strong tradition of military service.

Since late 2005, the US has said it is trying to drive a wedge between the more extreme Islamist groups and the more secular and moderate nationalists. Sunni insurgent groups were split over participation in elections in December 2005, although support from some boosted significant Sunni turnout and thus Sunni influence on the new government. But a report by Anthony Cordesman, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said even Sunni leaders who were participating in - rather than attacking - the political process, were forming their own forces to counter the existing Shia militias.

Shia Mujahideen

Some Iraqi political parties have armed wings, despite US pressure to disband militias.A growing trend of sectarian killings in Baghdad and other mixed Sunni and Shia areas of the country has prompted fears of civil war. Groups of corpses, typically with hands bound and gunshot wounds to the head, sometimes bearing signs of torture, have regularly been found. In some cases gunmen, sometimes dressed in the uniforms of government security forces, abduct victims or pull them from cars at checkpoints.There are widespread suspicions that militias linked to two key Shia parties are involved in targeting Sunnis. While the allegations have not been proven, these militias are becoming increasingly prominent as sectarian divisions grow.

The US ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, has described such groups as "the infrastructure of civil war". Separately from the main militias, some Shia have also formed informal defence forces which provide security for local neighbourhoods, with armed guards carrying out patrols and manning roadblocks.

Ansar al-Islam

Ansar al-Islam or Supporters of Islam is a radical Kurdish Islamist that is supportive of Saddam Hussein's regime. This group is located in the pseudo-autonomous Northern Iraq. This group has ties with Taliban and al-Qaeda. It is the most radical group operating in the Iraqi Kurdistan region.

The group was established in December 2001 after a merger between Jund al-Islam, led by Abu Abdallah al-Shafi'i and the Islamic Movement splinter group led by Mullah Krekar. Both leaders are believed to have served in Afghanistan. The group is based in Biyarah and surrounding areas near the border with Iran.

Ansar al-Islam recent activities include: razing of beauty salons, burning a schools for girls, and murdered women in the streets for refusing to wear the burqa. It has seized a Taliban-style enclave of 4,000 civilians and several villages near the Iranian border. It is also responsible for ambushing and killing of 42 Kurdish soldiers. Ansar al-Islam is in a state of war with the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK). It was responsible for the assassination in 2001 of a senior official of the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), Franso Hariri, and for the attempted killing of Burhan Salih, head of the PUK-led Iraqi Kurdistan regional government. However, Ansar al-Islam is not in armed confrontation with the KDP.

According to some reports, the group has received $600,000 from al-Qaeda, and a delivery of weapons and Toyota Land Cruisers. There are also reports stating that Ansar al-Islam received $35,000 from the Mukhabarat branch of Iraqi Intelligence Service, in addition to a considerable quantity of arms. The leader of Ansar al-Islam, Mullah Krekar is receiving financial and legal support from the Norwegian government, and is enjoying full freedom in Norway.

In early March 2003, the air attack pulverized the mountain base of Ansar al-Islam by US troops. US officials were triumphant last spring, even as the broader Iraq invasion was still underway, after a three-day assault. Gen. Tommy Franks declared that a "massive terrorist facility in northern Iraq" had been "attacked and destroyed" by a joint US-Kurdish operation. Lengthy interviews with several Ansar members in custody, and with officials and intelligence sources of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) in northern Iraq, however, yield a more ambiguous picture. These sources describe a group now so diminished and demoralized that even true believers admit it is unlikely to be reborn according to its old template.Instead, they say, elements of the group have begun operating in smaller cells.

The strength of this group estimated about 700 members.

Needs to be written properly. --HanzoHattori (talk) 06:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Burma

Are they calling themselves "mujahideen"? Google search says "rather no". --HanzoHattori (talk) 06:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. Until I get any kind of proof, here's the text:

A sizable number of mujahideen[dubious – discuss] are present and concentrated in the province of Arakan, Myanmar.[1] They were much more active before the 1962 coup d'etat by General Ne Win. Ne Win carried out some military operations targeting them over a period of two decades. The prominent one was "Operation King Dragon" which took place in 1978; as a result, many Muslims in the region fled to neighboring country Bengladesh as refugees. Nevertheless, the Myanmar mujahideen are still active within the remote areas of Arakan.[2] Their associations with Bangladeshi mujahideen were significant but they have extended their networks to the international level and countries such as Pakistan, Malaysia, et al, during the recent years. They collect donations, and get religious military training outside of Myanmar.[3]

--HanzoHattori (talk) 07:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Bosnia (again...)

I have recently reverted major edits to the Bosnia section by User:Grandy Grandy. Please see the extensive justification/discussion on this above. Primarily though, his edits delete all links to the specific article on the Bosnian mujahideen, which seems strange given that the section is about the Mujahideen in Bosnia. Also, his edits here present the issue in a way that is contrary to the consensus version of the main Bosnian mujahideen article.Osli73 (talk) 09:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment

  1. There is a common name used in documents, which isn't "Bosnian mujahideen".
  2. Why did you remove the cause of their arrival? The massacres committed by the Serbs is direct cause of their arrival according to their statements in ICTY cases.
  3. Bosnian army was not "the ultimate commanders of the mujahideen". According to the Arab fighters who testified as the prosecution witnesses at the trial of Rasim Delic, the El Mujahid Detachment was only formally part of the Bosnian Army chain of command. All decisions were taken by the emir and the shura, the Mujahideen commander and the Mujahideen supreme council respectively. This was because the ‘Army couldn’t be trusted’.- ICTY: MUJAHIDEEN DIDN’T TRUST THE ARMY.
  4. Why did you remove the number of foreigners by Radio Free Europe resarch? It isn't "Islamist website", which is a common Serb propaganda "argument".

If you do not agree with the above or my edits, please address each of the above points specifically before reverting/making any major edits. Grandy Grandy (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

GG, please see my replies to your above points on the Talk:Bosnian mujahideen page (by the way, why did you copy past the same questions in both places?). CheersOsli73 (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with anon, and I agree even with Grandy, his version is closer to neutrality than Osli's. On the other hand I disagree with Osli73 (talk · contribs)/KarlXII (talk · contribs) mainly because of sneaky vandalism (removing ICTY sources and misinterpretationing of ICTY sources) and edit warring/sockpuppetery that Osli73/KarlXII is prone to.
Let's see this.
Osli wrote El Mujahid was "a part of the 7th Muslim Brigade, 3rd Corps, of the Bosnian Army (ABiH), based in and around Zenica in central Bosnia."
This is not true according to Appeals Chamber. According to this new judgment, "the Appeals Chamber noted that the relationship between the 3rd Corps headed by Hadžihasanović and the El Mujahedin detachment was not one of subordination but was instead “close to overt hostility since the only way to control the... detachment was to attack them as if they were a distinct enemy force"." --HarisM (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's get serious

I left my comment on Bosnian Mujahideen talk page. --HarisM (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


Amir Kabura appeals judgement

The section on the mujahideen in Bosnia was recently reverted by an anonymous editor with the argument that "ICTY Appeals Chamber yesterday ruled Kubura and Hadzihasanovic not guilty on all counts related to El Mujahid, and ruled it was not under Bosnian Army control, article should be drastically changed". A couple of problems with this:

  1. Amir Kabura was was no acquitted, he had his sentence reduced. The overturned the murder conviction but still charged him with crimes. Here's a text from the ICTY website: "The Appeals Chamber today upheld in part the Trial Chamber’s findings in the case of Enver Hadžihasanović and Amir Kubura, both former senior officials in the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina (ABiH) convicted as superiors for crimes committed by their subordinates in central Bosnia in 1993. The Appeals Chamber also granted the two defendants’ appeals in part and reduced their sentences to three years and six months of imprisonment for Hadžihasanović and two years’ imprisonment for Kubura."[6]
  2. The court still maintains that the crimes in question were committed, it just couldn't prove that Kabura committed them himself, and therefore only found him guilty of not stopping them.
  3. The judgement has nothing to do with the text which was reverted. The outcome of the Kabura judgemnet only warrants an update of the outcome of the case itself.

CheersOsli73 (talk) 18:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no problem with this. Maybe you didn't read it carefully. Here is the rest of judgment.

  1. Amir Kubura was acquitted on all counts related to Mujahideen. AC found Kubura guilty "of having failed to prevent or punish plunder committed by his troops in various locations in the Ovnak area near Zenica and in the Vareš municipality." His troops were not Mujahideen as you suggested. ICTY distinguishes it also in Hadzihasanovic case: forces under his command in the municipalities of Bugojno and Zenica, as well as in the El Mujahedin which means two different formations. [7]
  2. Read the above answer.
  3. The judgement has everything to do with the revert, because your version suggested false picture of the events. Read this part from judgment: Further, the Appeals Chamber reversed the Trial Chamber’s finding that Hadžihasanović failed to prevent the murder of Dragan Popović, as well as the cruel treatment of several other detainees committed in the Orašac camp during October 1993 by the El Mujahedin detachment. The Appeals Chamber found that it was not proven beyond reasonable doubt that Hadžihasanović had effective control over the El Mujahedin detachment. It accordingly found, contrary to what had been pleaded in the Indictment, that he could not be held responsible as a superior for the crimes committed by the members of the El Mujahedin detachment. As part of its reasoning, the Appeals Chamber noted that the relationship between the 3rd Corps headed by Hadžihasanović and the El Mujahedin detachment was not one of subordination but was instead “close to overt hostility since the only way to control the … detachment was to attack them as if they were a distinct enemy force”.

Which means that El Mujahedin was not subordinated to Bosnian Army. 217.75.202.131 (talk) 12:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


Dear anon:

  1. quite obviously the Kabura appeals judgement only pertains to the section of the text which uses it as a source. It has no bearing on the other parts of the text. Therefore the Kabura appeals judgment is not a valid reason for reverting that text back to the version supported by User:Grandy Grandy (which is what you did).
  2. the Kabura appeals judgement doesn't deny the war crimes committed by the mujahideen. It only states that Kabura's control over them was weak and that he therefore can't be held fully responsible.
  3. in line with no. 1 and no. 2 above I have reverted the text and changed the section on war crimes where the Kabura case was used as a source. It now reads:

    "It is widely documented that the mujahideen units were involved in war crimes against Croats and Serbs. The ICTY indictment against two commanders in the Bosnian government army (ABiH), Enver Hadzihasanovic and Amir Kubura, describes war crimes committed by mujahideen units during the war. The ICTY indictment against Bosnian government army general Rasim Delic also sets war crimes allegedly committed by mujahideen troops under his command."

    The point of the source was not whether or not Kabura was responsible, but that the indictment/judgement described the war crimes committed by the Bosnian mujahideen. Whether Kabura was responsible or not was not the point of the text or what the source was used for.

CheersOsli73 (talk) 23:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear anon,

  • after reading the full Hadžihasanović and Kubura appeal judgement of 22 April 2008 (not only the press release) I am willing to adjust my position. It seems the court found that while Hadzihasanovic had de jure control over the El mujahideen detachment in question, it was nnot proven beyond reasonable doubt that he had effective control over them. Para. 191 reads:

    The Trial Chamber began its analysis of Hadžihasanović’s effective control over the El Mujahedin detachment as of 13 August 1993 by stating that, given its finding that he had de jure authority, what needed to be established was whether the evidence before it was capable of reversing the presumption that Hadžihasanović had effective control over the El Mujahedin detachment

    It goes on to state in para. 209:

    These findings confirm that the El Mujahedin detachment took part in several combat operations in September and October 1993 and that this occurred within the framework established by the OG Bosanska Krajina and the 3rd Corps. This, however, does not in itself necessarily provide sufficient support for the conclusion that Hadžihasanović had effective control over the El Mujahedin detachment in the sense of having the material ability to prevent or punish its members should they commit crimes.586 Further, several findings of the Trial Chamber demonstrate that the El Mujahedin detachment maintained on various issues a significant degree of independence from the units it fought alongside. This belies the Trial Chamber’s conclusion that the El Mujahedin detachment was under the effective control of the 3rd Corps.

    In para. 231 the appeals court concludes:

    In order to demonstrate that Hadžihasanović had effective control over the members of the El Mujahedin detachment, the Prosecution was required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Hadžihasanović had the material ability to prevent or punish the criminal conduct of its members...the Appeals Chamber finds that no reasonable trier of fact could have concluded that it was established beyond reasonable doubt that Hadžihasanović had effective control over the El Mujahedin detachment between 13 August and 1 November 1993

    .
  • Thus it is not an issue wether or not the Mujahideen were de jure part of the Bosnian army or not, but about the degree of control over them by the ARBiH commander.
  • Of course, the indictment against Rasim Delic of 17 March 2005 seems to suggest otherwise (see para. 13, 14 and 15 in particular). With the closing arguments of that case expected 10 June this year and a judgement fairly shortly thereafter we should have a clear answer relatively shortly.
  • In conclusion, it would seem we should adjust the section on the relationship with the Bosnian government to state something like "...while the Bosnian mujahideen were de jure part of the Bosnian army and fought alongside them, the judgement in the Hadzihasanovic case implies that its control of the mujahideen was imperfect."

How about it? Again, this case has bearing only upon the section on the relationship with the Bosnian government, not the rest. CheersOsli73 (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with anon, and I agree even with Grandy, his version is closer to neutrality than Osli's. On the other hand I disagree with Osli73 (talk · contribs)/KarlXII (talk · contribs) mainly because of sneaky vandalism (removing ICTY sources and misinterpretationing of ICTY sources) and edit warring/sockpuppetery that Osli73/KarlXII is prone to.
Let's see this.
Osli wrote El Mujahid was "a part of the 7th Muslim Brigade, 3rd Corps, of the Bosnian Army (ABiH), based in and around Zenica in central Bosnia."
This is not true according to Appeals Chamber. According to this new judgment, "the Appeals Chamber noted that the relationship between the 3rd Corps headed by Hadžihasanović and the El Mujahedin detachment was not one of subordination but was instead “close to overt hostility since the only way to control the... detachment was to attack them as if they were a distinct enemy force"." --HarisM (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your comment about Rasim Delic indictment, it is not important what it suggests, indictment is not conclusion. I disagree with your adjustment, because it is not a real adjustment. I agree that that the conclusion of Appeals judgment should be included in the current version: "The Appeals Chamber noted that the relationship between the 3rd Corps headed by Hadžihasanović and the El Mujahedin detachment was not one of subordination but was instead “close to overt hostility since the only way to control the detachment was to attack them as if they were a distinct enemy force". --HarisM (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


Haris, the appeals chamber doesn't deny that the El Mujahed group was under the formal (ie de jure) control of Hadžihasanović, it just found that the prosecution could not "beyond reasonable doubt" that the El Mujahed were under "effective" (ie de facto) control of Hadžihasanović. This, of course, refers to this specific group of Mujahideen, and generally not to local Bosniak Islamic battallions. The conclusion is that although the El Mujahed fought for and with the ARBiH they were, at times, difficult to control and acted independently. However, I suspect you have already made up your mind. I therefore suggest that we take this to formal mediation. Would that be OK with you? Osli73 (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


Dear all, I have now requested mediation for this article (Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-28 Mujahideen)as we are not progressing towards a solution.Osli73 (talk) 11:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

What provoked the rewrite? My understanding is there was a court case (but my understanding is minimal at the moment, so I have to ask some silly questions :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 01:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Xavexgoem, sorry for the long absence, I've been travelling.
  • My argument, of course, is that there is no reason for a major rewrite as made by HarisM. Basically, the two defendants, who were charged with responsibility for war crimes committed by Bosnian mujahideen allegedly under their control, were found to be not guilty for some of these crimes since it could not be proven that they in effective (ie de facto) control over the mujahideen forces, although it is not contested that these forces were under their de jure command.
  • I agree that the outcome of this courtcase means the text should be rewritten so that it is clear that the Bosnian government was not necessarily in full control over the Bosnian mujahideen units which were formally under their control.
  • I see no reason for rewriting the article in the way done by HarisM. I have not seen any arguments presented by him why any of the other facts should be affected by the outcome of the court case.
  • Your comments as to how to progress are most welcome. Otherwise I feel we will simply end up with HarisM reverting back to his very different version without presenting any arguments, without discussion or consensus.
  • I would also like you to consider the background of the Bosnian mujahideen article and the longstanding vandalism / opposition to it as well as the outcome of the mediation in that case.
CheersOsli73 (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Hrmm...Well, first things first. What's wrong with HarisM's rewrite, specifically?
I'm also waiting for his reply :-) I want to know (HarisM): what's right about your rewrite? Xavexgoem (talk) 03:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

move to Mujahid

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move. JPG-GR (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I have asked why this article is at the plural form twice before, without getting a reply. Unless there are any objections after all, I will go ahead and move this to the proper singular, Mujahid. dab (𒁳) 12:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Although the nominator is strictly correct according to Wikipedia rules, the article is not about the generic concept of a mujahid, i.e., "a Muslim involved in a jihad, id est fighting in a war or involved in any other struggle." It is about several geographically and temporally specific struggles to which the term "mujahideen" has been applied and what "mujahideen" (not "mujahid") means in the context of each. In English, mujahideen in this context even functions as a mass noun rather than as a plural (e.g., The Afghan mujahideen is winning the war) in some cases. The root of the word as an Arabic plural is covered sufficiently in the etymology section and the title should remain at mujahideen per WP:CN and WP:UE. — AjaxSmack 02:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
    • I should mention too that this case is the same as Fedayeen, a term also derived from an Arabic plural. — AjaxSmack 02:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with AjaxSmack so I am moving it back. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Thailand section

no mention of Mujahid... we need context or remove. 68.175.83.141 (talk) 02:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

what about the Janjaweed?

Me again... Janjaweed, are they mujahideen at all - or are they just assholes? 68.175.83.141 (talk) 02:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand this

A Mujahid (Arabic مجاهد, muǧāhid, literally "struggler") is a Muslim involved in a jihad, id est fighting in a war or involved in any other struggle.[1] The plural is Mujahideen[2] (Arabic: مجاهدين‎, muǧāhidīn). The word is from the same Arabic triliteral as jihad ("struggle").

What does the "id est" mean?--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


id est is a Latin phrase that translates to 'that is' or 'for example'; it is usually writen as i.e. ~Calixte —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calixte (talk • contribs) 22:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Bosnia

I've added back a text which fits with the text in the main Bosnian mujahideen article. Any issues with this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.224.135.205 (talk) 22:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If the Bosnia text is to differ from the text in the main article (Bosnian mujahideen) then this needs to be justified.Osli73 (talk) 23:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
KM, could you please explain why you believe the Bosnia section of this article should differ from the text in the main article? I see no reason why it should.Osli73 (talk) 09:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Because the main article is disputed. Kruško Mortale (talk) 07:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

"Jihadist" ?

Is "jihadist" an acceptable alternate term or is it just a (possibly dumbed-down) surrogate ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.71.204.185 (talk) 03:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Claim of al Qaeda connection for Indian and Deccan Mujahideen

Someone just added a quote from a Weekly Standard article but presented it as fact; the statement is sourced in the original article to unnamed intelligence officials: "Indian intelligence believes the Indian Mujahideen is a front group created by Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Harkat ul Jihad al Islami to confuse investigators and cover the tracks of the Students' Islamic Movement of India, or SIMI, a radical Islamist movement. The groups receive support from Pakistan's Inter-Service Intelligence and are al Qaeda affiliates."

I added quote marks but wonder if the claim of al Qaeda affiliation should be there at all; I thought it was Lashkar-e-Taiba, a group working to expel India from Kashmir, that was considered linked to al-Qaeda. The Indian/Deccan Mujahideen are more focused internally, aren't they? Either way, I don't think a bald statement from the Weekly Standard is enough to make the connection. Mediareport (talk) 06:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Mujahideen and their fight against the United States

I think this should be included in the article. The current jihad by al Qaeda and islamic affiliates is directed towards the United States and its supporters for political corruption. This problem has something to do with the continuing United States occupation and presence in the Middle East, Africa, Southeast Asia and Afghanistan. This is because of the rich oil resources those countries have.

Problems in Etymology Section

Unfortunately, the Etymology section of this article doesn't read very clearly, specifically the second paragraph:

Like the concept and title Ghazi, it has been used in formal titles of Muslim leaders who prided themselves on (and legitimized their conquests by) Jihad bis saïf, holy war in the name of establishing Islamic rule, even at very high political level: no lesser ruler than Sultan Murad Khan II Khoja-Ghazi, sixth Sovereign of the House of Osman (1421–1451), had as full style 'Abu'l Hayrat, Sultan ul-Mujahidin, Khan of Khans, Grand Sultan of Anatolia and Rumelia and of the Cities of Adrianople and Philippolis, including the formal title "Sultan of mujahideen"

As far as typographical errors, I believe the writer meant a very high political level instead of just very high political level. Aside from that, why is it significant that a ruler would add a title like "Ghazi" to their name even if they are in a very high office? Does it have to do with controversy surrounding such a title? Maybe that should be made a little clearer.

Now, the part after this one, beginning with no lesser ruler, is not written clearly at all. So much so that I'm not totally sure how to smooth it out. For one, I think there's a wiki-syntax error after the words had as full style. In the raw source for this paragraph from the Etymology section, there are three single quote's before Abu'l Hayrat, but the wikimarkup interpreter only sees two, since there are only two at the end of Philippolis. And so I think the original writer just put one to many single quotes at the beginning there.

Regardless, the part of the sentence beginning with no lesser doesn't make much since. For one, what did they mean by a lesser ruler than Sultan Murad Khan II Koja-Ghazi? Now, I practically know next to nothing about sultan rule, but I'm willing to bet there there's some more specific term that can describe the status of of one sultan's rule compared with another. Perhaps the writer meant lesser as in administering a smaller government or enjoying less notoriety.

When the writer says that Murad Khan II had as full style 'Abu'l Hayrat, Sultan ul-Mujahidin, Khan of Khans, Grand Sultan of Anatolia and Rumelia and of the Cities of Adrianople and Philippolis, including the formal title "Sultan of mujahideen", I'm not totally sure what they meant. Perhaps they meant that Murad Khan II had these several titles suffixed to his name? If that's the case, then I'd change has as full style to something like had the full title of. Also, I'd question this sentence ending with including the formal title "Sultan of mujahideen", since I believe that title was already included in this list in the form of Sultan ul-Mujahidin, assuming that Farsi's ul- is the same as English's of, which I suspect it is.

I won't make these proposed corrections in the event that I'm greatly mistaken about anything. I hope that someone more knowledgeable of these subjects can shed some light, but as that paragraph now stands, it doesn't make a lot of sense. Lastly, there are no references cited in this section at all, so I feel compelled to add an appropriate cleanup template... If anyone has other suggestions, please let me know or just go for it!

--Enderandpeter (talk) 21:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Afghanistan - What does this line mean?

Many Muslims from other countries killed to assist the various mujahideen groups in Afghanistan, and gained significant bombs in suicidal warfare.

Biased "Further Reading" List

The further reading list is largely if not completely comprised of texts devoted to criticism of Islam. The place for this is "Books critical of Islam", not an article. Canoraid (talk) 21:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This line does not make any sense. Simple grammatical editing decision, delete the second half after the comma

Many Muslims from other countries assisted the various mujahideen groups in Afghanistan, and gained significant bombs in suicidal warfare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.135.213 (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ [http://www.atimes.com/ind-pak/CJ10Df01.html THE ROVING EYE Jihad; The ultimate thermonuclear bomb by Pepe Escobar] Oct 2001, Asia Times.
  2. ^ Global Muslim News (Issue 14) July-Sept 1996, Nida'ul Islam magazine.
  3. ^ [http://www.atimes.com/ind-pak/CJ10Df01.html THE ROVING EYE Jihad; The ultimate thermonuclear bomb by Pepe Escobar] Oct 2001, Asia Times.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mujahideen/Archive_1&oldid=1137025264"