Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Jump to content

Talk:Mujahideen

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

What? Carter was the U.S. President from January 1977 to January 1981, and Afghan-Soviet war ended in 1989. Where does 1993 fit in? This article is full of what can only be called stupid errors.

[edit]

In 1998, Carter's national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, admitted that U.S. sponsorship of the mujahideen was launched by Jimmy Carter, in July 1993, to give the USSR its "Vietnam war". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.135.213 (talk) 18:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I would just like to add my two bits on Brzezinski; he did make the comment, and it is RS having been published in a french periodical, but after considerable research and conversations with some authorities on the topic, it just didn't happen that way. There was some funding in '79, which was through Karachi, and it was humanitarian in nature. We didn't intervene and the best take on the Carter administration's views and policy at the time were best expressed by the CIA's station chief in the movie about Wilson; 'we don't want to turn the cold war into a hot war'. For Zbigniew to make such a claim some 20 years later without either corroborating evidence or witness is certainly not the definitive statement on the topic. Jimmy Carter simply did not and did not attempt to draw the USSR into 'their Viet-Nam' at the time. In retrospect it looks rather clever, but it isn't so. If what Zbigniew said were true, he'd have been more guilty than Oliver North, and would very likely have gotten charged with a crime. Only after the invasion by the USSR would it have been legal to provide weapons and support to insurgents. Jimmy Carter would not have knowingly been involved or allowed his administration to be involved in what Zbigniew describes. Not that I don't admire some of ZB's other accomplishments, but his statement on the Carter administration's involvement in Afghanistan is either wishful thinking or an old man glorifying his accomplishments, nothing more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.152.76.122 (talk) 14:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I stand corrected; Even ZB is no longer standing by the comments quoted in Le Nouvel Obs., claiming he never said them. This in spite of the fact that he made similar comments to other sources in about the same time frame, raising the possibility that he did in fact make the statements to LNO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.152.76.122 (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Better description

[edit]

"Mujahideen are Muslims who struggle in the path of God." Means jack shit to anyone who doesn't already know something about the subject.77.86.192.53 (talk) 16:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • I concur with Jack Shit's above comment. It's unclear to me, (as a total outsider), whether these people believe themselves to be suffering for a good cause, or if they are in the path of god, meaning standing in god's way, i.e. some kind of heretical sect like gnostics or something. I think what's confusing some readers is the use of "in the path of," which might be more effectively phrased as "in the name of god" or something if its one way, or "in opposition to god" if its the other way.76.250.193.121 (talk) 20:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

[edit]

Why the disambiguation link to muezzin? The two words are not easily confused; one might as well link to magazine, since that's also an Arabic-derived word with similar initial and terminal sounds. 71.248.115.187 (talk) 01:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Jihadism: mixed origins, internal problems of realising the concept

[edit]

The section Modern Jihadism is only one short paragraph that misses its dual nature and its fundamental problems vis a vis today's muslim struggles. Its dual nature: Al Qutb was a 1960's Egyptian religious leader, anti-imperialist and angry about the immense poverty persisting amongst so much oil wealth. His solutions (ending western hegemony in the world economy and redistribute power and wealth down the social ladder) were socialist-like, although he denied this, saying that with a proper Islam, socialism becomes irrelevant.

The other pillar of modern Jihadism is internationalist Wahabism, in which Saudi and Yemeni clerics, their pockets laden with oil dollars, try to unite all Muslims by 'purifying' Islam in all other countries into their own (very conservative) idea of what Islam is.

For Al Qutb, Western capitalism was essentially what was wrong with the world, while for internationalist Wahabism, 'fighting the crusaders and infidels' is only political rethoric, a propaganda tool to rally Muslims into their own Wahabi version of Islam.

The second contradiction in Jihadism is that in all countries where they had some sort of success, they joined national movements (Taliban in Afghanistan, Al-Shabaab in Somalia, other movements in Algeria, and Pakistan). But ten years later, these national movements all came to realise that international fighters increasingly turn their guns on traditional local Islam, and their national aim (fighting poverty and oppression of Muslims by an unholy regime) was not helped by international fighters. To the contrary. In Afghanistan, the Taliban are preparing to throw out Al-Qaeda, in Somalia, Shabaab is struggling to reduce the influence of international leaders, and in Pakistan Al-Qaeda is now told to shut up by the same military groups that previously welcomed them. Also in the south of Algeria and surrounding countries, AQIM is split between those who want to prioritize a national agenda, and those who want to attack 'apostate interests'. All national movements increasingly realize that international Mujahideen attract drones and CIA budgets that go their national oppressors. Also, being part of a union of caliphats as Al-Qaeda in the wherever, places wannabee national leaders in wherever under authority of an organisation that is often highly critical of their own idea of how to run things.

So modern Jihadism is marred with two major contradictions: a progressive, egalitarian agenda versus a conservative, hierarchical agenda, and a national, anti-dictatorial agenda, versus an internationalist, highly hierarchical agenda.

A more practical problem for them is, that they thrived on a political status quo, in which dictatorships disallowed all political opposition, leaving no other way for people to formulate political wishes then through Islam. With political space opening widely in many Muslim countries, Islam lost its exclusive position as the only possible arena for seeking change.

Shall we put somthing about this in the section Modern Jihadism?Pieter Felix Smit (talk) 11:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Too many citations?

[edit]

I'm looking especially at the end of the section on the Kosovo war with 14 citations for a single sentence. Should those get slimmed down a bit? Tautologous (talk) 15:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is this guideline on the matter. Another helpful thing would be to take the opportunity and verify the citations--it's not uncommon for ones with that many numerous citations to have a few that aren't totally kosher, and Wikipedians are notoriously bad for taking as canon anything with a little blue number next to it. I dunno, give it a shot. Peter Deer (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

“Muslims who struggle in the path of Allah” is not an encyclopedic definition

[edit]

EIN (talk) 04:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, if it's an accurate definition then it's encyclopedic. --Xiaphias (talk) 03:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of those you describe below the will delete what has no evidence citations, and then they say too many citations. Now it appears to me you will never be able to help Wikipedia it is USA dominated USSR Backed The Democratic Afghanistan Movement so USA opposed Democracy to back Mujahedeen & spite USSR. But in time this group morphed into Bin-Laden Taliban &/or Al-Qaida so USA suddenly reversed to back Afghanistan Democrats and i9/11 the direct consequence leading to "War on Terror" a nebulous term like "Drug War" both of which USA is loosing as they did in Vietnam and all wars not ruled by the British. USA has failed in 60 wars and really won only their Independence War and some Indian Wars, American/Spanish War merely trading land etc. Robbygay (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC) You said on the Mujahideen page From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 20/6/2013 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mujahideen>[reply]

• This article has multiple issues. Please help. • This article provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject.. (May 2011) • This article may contain original research. tatements consisting only of original research may be removed. (July 2011) • This article is incomplete. Please help (May 2013) Uninformed comment by me confused. --Robbygay (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the flag of Tawhid Al-Shadhah removed?

[edit]

Seriously why? WarriorofShiism (talk) 01:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Bosnia and Herzegovina Main articles: Bosnian mujahideen and Bosnian War

During the Bosnian war 1992-1995, some foreign Muslims came to Bosnia as mujahideen. The war had been depicted in the international press as an attack on Muslims. Serb forces attacked Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim) communities indiscriminately, and committed substantial atrocities against the Bosniak population (see Bosnian Genocide, Srebrenica Massacre, Serbian War Crimes in the Yugoslav Wars). This moved Muslims who shared mujahideen beliefs to come to the aid of oppressed fellow Muslims, and also presented an opportunity to strike at "infidels"."

Also:

"The evidence shows that foreign volunteers arrived in central Bosnia in the second half of 1992 with the aim of helping Muslims against the Serbian aggressors. "

Can You, please, clarify, does genocide in Bosnia by Serbs against Muslims in Bosnia came in 1995. after the coming of Mujahideens in early 1992. to Bosnia? I think (as a person who remembers the early days of Yugoslav wars) that Mujahideen's coming to Bosnia was agreed at the early phase of Yugoslav wars, as Bosnian Muslim leadership felt their Army strength being inferior in comparison to Serbian or Croatian national armed forces. I mean, coming of Mujahideens to Bosnia wasn't triggered by Serbs atrocities over Bosnian Muslims - they have come earlier ...

Also, Serbs and Muslims in Bosnia have the same origin and have been living in Bosnia for centuries. Before 14th century, there were no Muslims in Bosnia, only Serbs and Croats. So, I think that term "Serbian aggressors" is quite not appropriate, as war in Bosnia was a civil war ... I am not trying to minimise war crimes made by Bosnian Serbs, just want to make article more reliable.

Thank You!

Josip FLEIS (talk) 21:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Major inaccuracy with lede: The Taliban did not exist during the Soviet-Afghan war

[edit]

The lede needed immediate action because it contained a major distortion, conflating the Taliban (which came into being in 1994 and is a distinct group), with all the mujahedin of the 1980s conflict. The term "mujahedin" in English usage is a generic term for the groups of Afghans who were fighting the Soviets. Many of these mujahedin later fought wars against the Taliban when it emerged in the mid 1990s. The mujahedin were a very loose coalition of the general Afghan population. They could not be described as "radical islamists", as they had no explicit islamist agenda. Rather they were simply conservative muslims because Afghanistan has a conservative muslim culture. The mujahedin were mainly motivated by nationalism to expel a foreign occupying force. They were happy to cooperate with secular nations such as the USA (without any concern for American support for Israel or anti-islamist regimes like Egypt). The radical islamists such as Bin Laden's all-Arab group the Maktab al Khadimat scorned US support and relied exclusively on Saudi support out of the inherent islamist hatred of the USA, equal to their scorn of the USSR. Activities that the Taliban later outlawed in the 1990s, such as listening to popular music, trimming one's beard, dancing at weddings, or celebrating traditions like the Afghan New Year, were not uncommon to mujahedin in the 1980s. The radical islamism of the Taliban developed AWAY from the Soviet war, in the refugee camps in Pakistan. The teenage boys who later comprised the fighters of the Taliban in the 1990s were being indoctrinated there in Saudi funded Wahhabi madrassas. The radicalism of the Taliban was a product of Saudi Wahhabism being imported into Afghanistan after the war ended in 1989 by returning male refugees, it was not an organic outgrowth of the country's conservative culture. Very quickly after the Taliban emerged in late 1994, it was at war with many former mujahedin, most notably the mujahedin leader Ahmad Shah Massoud. Walterego (talk) 05:11, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"They were happy to cooperate with secular nations such as the USA"

The USA was definitively not a secular nation in the 1980s. It was, like now, a nominally secular nation. The reason Reagan and others loved the Muhajideen was that they were willing to die for their beliefs. They were what the American Christian right wanted to be. The communism was routinely referred to as "atheistic communism" in the USA, in the same way the Nazis referred to it as "Jewish communism." Poisoning the well. The CIA did not arm any Afghan. They wanted the most bang for the buck. They armed the most fundamentalist and militant Afghans they could find, Afghans who loved to kill atheists. And tribal Afgans being driven by nationalism? Politically the Muslims may be closer to communism, but the Muhajideen, Taliban and other Wahhabis are just as religious as the American Christian right. You are correct in that the "radicalization" (I hate to see this word, applied to lefties, now applied to the right) of Islam has come since the 1980s. You can twist and turn it all you want, but it is all the work of the Saudi Arabia, with endorsement from the USA. Conservatively, Saudi Arabia has spent $100-billion since the 1980s on spreading its brand of Islam, Wahhabism. In comparison, the USSR spent a total of $7 billion on propaganda over its entire existence. For example, nobody spoke Arabic in Indonesia in the 1980s. Today they have all these Saudi-sponsored Madrasas where young Indonesians speak Arabic.

This article is full of inaccuracies and possible self-research

[edit]

As other people have already pointed out, there are several factual errors and mistakes without proper citation to back them up. There are too many to list, but the first one I noticed was in the Burma section: "There were many Muslim Rebels in Rakhine State of Burma in 1946—a year after achieving Independence." Burma achieved independence in 1948. This sentence implies it gained independence in 1945, whilst it was still under British control during and after WWII ended. This makes me wonder what else in this article is factually incorrect that I am not aware of. – GeneralAdmiralAladeen (Têkilî min) 19:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Mujahideen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mujahideen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mujahideen&oldid=1226991929"