Talk:Abdullah Yusuf Azzam

Azzam the American Adam Pearlman Adam Yahiye Gadahn
Hopiakuta 05:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Lead
The sentences in the lead deleted by Robert C Prenic
 * Shaikh Azzam built a scholarly, ideological and practical paramilitary infrastructure for the globalization of Islamist movements that had previously focused on separate national, revolutionary and liberation struggles. Shaikh Azzam’s philosophical rationalization of global jihad and practical approach to recruitment and training of Muslim militants from around the world blossomed during the Afghan war against Soviet occupation and proved crucial to the subsequent development of the al-Qaida militant movement.

are too vague, speculative and lacking in sources IMHO, but we need more of an introdution than


 * Sheikh Abdullah Yusuf Azzam (1941 As-ba'ah Al-Hartiyeh, British Mandate of Palestine – 1989, Peshawar, Pakistan) (Arabic عبدالله عزام) was a highly respected Islamic scholar and theologian.

So I added one. --BoogaLouie 16:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent work! Robert C Prenic 16:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sheikh?
Was he a Sheikh? Can this be verified? What entitled someone to be given this title? Officially? 81.156.13.254 (talk) 13:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Read the article sheikh, the title isn't given officially by someone and there's no exact definition of what it means to be a sheikh. "...is a word or honorific term in the Arabic language that literally means "elder"." Yonatan talk 12:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sunni or Shia?
I assume he was of the Sunni denomination since Al Qaeda is Sunni but it'd be a good idea to find out for sure and add this to the article. Yonatan talk 12:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Added. Palestinians are sunni, as are Muslim Brethern, so to say he's Sunni is redundant to Muslims and others innitiated to the subject ... but of course wikipedia is for everybody. --BoogaLouie (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Did Abdullah Azzam have well known aliases?
Guantanamo captive Ridah Bin Saleh Al Yazidi was held, in part, because he was suspected to have heard sermons from sheikhs who were believed to have counselled listeners to go to Afghanistan.

One of the Summary of Evidence memos prepared for his annual reviews mentioned him hearing a sheikh named Abdullah Azzan:
 * The detainee decided to join the Jihad in Afghanistan in 1996. He was influenced in his decision by Sheikh Soubeihi, an Egyptian, who spoke at the Mosque in Milan and Sheikh Silman Al Ouda Abdullah Azzan [sic]. Once he made this decision, the detainee began saving money and intensifying his religious studies.
 * Abudallah Azzan [sic] stated that individuals should follow Usama bin Laden by imitating his devotion to Islamic Jihad, both physically and financially.

About a dozen captives had their detention justified by hearing a Sheikh named some variation of "al awda" or "al odah". He was a Saudi or Yemeni who died in late 2001. Abdullah Azzam died about ten years earlier. Could US intelligence analysts mistake two guys who died ten years apart? Yup. Absolutely.

Several of al Qaida's inner circle are commonly called mumble al libi. The public record strongly suggests they failed to tell these guys apart. One was reported killed a few years ago. And the Bush administration bragged he was al Qaeda's number three. Then last summer Abu Laith Al Libi was reported to have been killed. And HE was reported to have been al Qaeda's number three. There was a quiet acknowledgement that the earlier al Libi had not been al Qaeda's number three after all.

Similarly, there are several guys suspected of playing lead roles in the GWOT called some variation of al masri. One of these guy had a page devoted to him on the US Government's "rewards for justice" site. This page had a picture. I went to this page the day this guy was reported to have been killed. I hadn't visited it before. On this first visit it took me less than a second to recognize the picture was of the much more notorious Al Masri who was formerly the Imam of the Finsbury Park Mosque in London -- prior to the explosion that blinded one of his eyes.

Then there is Khalid el-Masri and a couple of dozen similar cases...

So, how about it?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 05:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.nytimes.com/1994/11/21/arts/television-review-in-jihad-in-america-food-for-uneasiness.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

RfD for Global Jihad
I proposed to retarget from al-Qaeda to Global jihad (disambiguation). Discuss here.~Technophant (talk) 07:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Co-founder of Al-Qaeda
According to his biographer Thomas Hegghammer, the claim that Azzam was co-founder of Al-Qaeda is “almost certainly inaccurate”.

Abdallah Azzam has often been described as a “co-founder of al-Qaida”, but this is almost certainly inaccurate. In fact, there is no evidence to suggest that he was anything more than an observer during the emergence of the new group.

p. 355

Azzam is not described as an al-Qaida member in other relevant primary sources from this period, and he never mentioned the organization in his own writings or speeches. In short, Azzam was neither a co-founder nor a member of al-Qaida.

Jo1971 (talk) 14:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Another error in the article:

He was also a co-founder of Lashkar-e-Taiba.

His biography says also not true.

Small groups of Pakistani Ahl-e Hadith activists fought in Afghanistan from around 1984, but it was mainly after the founding of the Markaz al-Da‘wa wa’l-Irshad (MDI) in 1987 that substantial numbers– at least several hundred– joined the war. The main founder of the MDI, Hafiz Saeed, had got to know Abdallah Azzam in Islamabad in the early 1980s and had studied the Qur’an with him there. It is not clear how they met, but it probably helped that Saeed spoke Arabic and had taught at King Saud University in Riyadh in the late 1970s. When Hafiz Saeed founded the MDI, he appears to have involved Abdallah Azzam in some way. This has led Azzam to be presented in several works on Pakistani Islamism as a co-founder of the MDI. However, new research suggests that Azzam’s role was more peripheral; he was just one of between fifteen and twenty people involved, and he likely only had an advisory role. [...] In any case, Azzam had nothing to do with the MDI’s more famous armed wing, Lashkar-e Tayyiba, which only emerged in the early 1990s.

Way too much here is based on this thin article on PBS. I removed these false claims (as a non-native English speaker I usually refrain from making changes, so hope I did not introduce any language errors). --Jo1971 (talk) 08:50, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

The Institute for National Security Studies on Hamas and Azzam
The Institute for National Security Studies has a lot of information on Hamas and Azzam, which you can find here: https://www.inss.org.il/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/systemfiles/(FILE)1298359986.pdf. It seems fairly established that he did have an ideological influence on Hamas as well as funded them, and, so, I'm not sure that the article should read, "some scholars allege", as if it were a popular speculation. He was, however, criticized for abandoning Palestine. Daydreamdays2 (talk) 22:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content
, has removed this sourced content from this Abdullah Azzam article. Abdullah Azzam has really written that ( had provided the source for it and I used the same source). Now what are we supposed to do?-Ganeemath (talk) 14:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * discuss it with him, and if you can't come to an agreement then do WP:3O or WP:RFC, I'm not invested in this sorry, it's between you two Kowal2701 (talk) 14:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * At the Teahouse, I have been told to seek dispute resolution if he doesn't give a proper justification for removing it.-Ganeemath (talk) 14:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I removed it because the section "Published works" should only describe the book, not cherry-pick certain ideas in order to promote a view. IntGrah (talk) 14:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It is the essence of the book.-Ganeemath (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * His views are already discussed in the main body of the article, and the specific quotation which you added to multiple articles (and I removed) remains at Jihad currently, although it may still require editing/moving. IntGrah (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * When we are quoting Azzam and it is the gist of his book, what is wrong with that sentence in this article?-Ganeemath (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not "the gist of his book", it's an excerpt of a book which contains many ideas. The sentence was worded in a way which does not clearly label it as his opinion.
 * We should not present him as if he was a reputable scholar. I would further argue that the 'Published works' section should be removed; "100 books, articles, and recorded conferences" is ambiguous: is it mainly books or mainly articles? This source says 10 books, and only two are listed in the article (of which one was not published). IntGrah (talk) 15:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You may change the 100 to 10, I will not revert you on that but I am still keen on adding that sentence. If it is modified to, In it, Azzam, based on his interpretation of the hadith, writes that it is a sin to not send an army of Muslims to terrorise the Kuffar, once or twice a year until only Muslims or those who submit to Islam remain, in offensive jihad; expelling Kuffar from Muslim lands is defensive jihad. will it be acceptable to you?-Ganeemath (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Ganeemath, there are already 4 other paragraphs which talk about Azzam's call for global jihad:
 * Azzam popularized the idea of armed Islamic struggle …
 * Azzam also broadened the idea of jihad. Azzam preached that jihad was …
 * Azzam had considerable impact. Fatwas going back to the Crusades had urged Muslims to defend …
 * Azzam is thought to have had influence on jihadists such as al-Qaeda with the third stage of …
 * If anything, the amount of weight given to his ideas should be reduced. IntGrah (talk) 15:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ￼Why should it be reduced? There is no limit on words here. We should expand it. Where do you propose to add the sentence I typed just above (originally drafted by )?-Ganeemath (talk) 15:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * See WP:UNDUE. The sentence is currently in the article on Jihad. IntGrah (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say anything that makes that sentence undue here (in this article). Please also self revert this and this. You are just removing text because you don't like it!-Ganeemath (talk) 16:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not removing text because I "don't like it". The paragraphs are all about the same concept of "armed global jihad". That's just a removal of duplicate content.
 * His ideology should mainly be discussed in another article, and we should not portray him as a learned Islamic scholar (by listing "published works").
 * For example, the article on Hitler does not have a "Published works" section listing Mein Kampf, Hitlers Zweites Buch, and his speeches. IntGrah (talk) 16:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We don't have an article for his ideology now, so all that should stay here, in this article.-Ganeemath (talk) 17:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of articles about the topic: Islam and violence, Jihadism, Qutbism, Islamic terrorism. This does not mean "add this quotation to all of these articles without context". The quotation is still present at Jihad although issues about due weight have been raised. I think the Jihad article should give less weight to extremist interpretations. IntGrah (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So, are you gonna remove sourced content from that article also? -Ganeemath (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I would move the content. Also, "sourced" isn't a magic word which means the content has to stay. IntGrah (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.png 3O Response: From what I can see, IntGrah has made arguments based on Wikipedia policies such as WP:UNDUE, tried to standardise the article with sources it cites like this, and seems to be making a commitment to staying on topic. By contrast, Ganeemath has made weaker arguments which ignore guidelines (e.g. "There is no limit on words here") and which are not based on reliable sources. I therefore favour IntGrah's line of thinking, and encourage Ganeemath to adapt their thinking to better adhere to Wikipedia ideals. Please feel free to ping me if you have any questions. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Is this, this, this and this removal of content as per the rules?-Ganeemath (talk) 14:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The second and fourth instances seem to be removing material sourced to non-independent, primary citations, and are thus beneficial. The first and third instances seem to be correct in their application of WP:UNDUE—the sourcing isn't great, and a fair bit of WP:BIASED/WP:WTW content seems to have been removed. Overall, yes, I think those diffs show good application of policy by IntGrah. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * When the sentence, In his book, "DEFENSE OF THE MUSLIM LANDS The first Obligation After Iman", he mentions, based on his interpretation of the hadith, that it is a sin to not send an army of Muslims to terrorise the Kuffar, once or twice a year until only Muslims or those who submit to Islam remain, in offensive jihad; expelling Kuffar from Muslim lands is defensive jihad. is mentioned in the Abdullah Azzam section of the Jihad article (which you added based on the request of ), should it not be mentioned in this article also, since this is the main article about him?-Ganeemath (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Seeing as it is grammatically incomprehensible, I would suggest that sentence be removed from any article it is currently in. In any case, writings of a person don't have to feature in their own article: On the Origin of Species contains large numbers of quotes from Charles Darwin that don't have to feature in his own article. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Seeing what you have typed, IntGrah will remove that sentence from the article on Jihad also. Please at least let us know how to formulate that sentence (I have quoted the original text here)?-Ganeemath (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I have rewritten that section, trimming much of the fat and unnecessary content. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Btw, copy pasting material/sentences into multiple pages is generally not done, as articles end up too similar and repetitive, it's just about having that information in the encyclopedia, it doesn't need to be everywhere Kowal2701 (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I left that quotation temporarily in the Jihad article, since it was the best fitting place currently. As per the section notice, it should probably be moved to a different article, since I believe Jihad should mostly talk about mainstream Islamic thought, not radical interpretations. However, I don't know which article to move it to. I agree that the grammar of the sentence needs editing, which has done. IntGrah (talk) 15:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think some discussion is fine, since the radical interpretation is now quite familiar worldwide. Too much is not justified, so I have trimmed Azzam's subsection down to two paragraphs. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. IntGrah (talk) 15:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Ditto Kowal2701 (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd like to restructure the Jihad article to have ==Greater/Inner jihad==, ==Lesser/Outer jihad==, and then ==History of usage==. It seems the modern interpretation is not given due weight, since the majority of Muslims see Greater jihad as being more prominent Kowal2701 (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't have any objections to that, although I don't have expert knowledge in the subject. IntGrah (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Here it says, "copying from one Wikipedia article to another" is allowed, so why should we not copy the sentence you edited and added in the article on Jihad in this article also, since it has inspired countless  mujahideen - those who are described as terrorists in the West?-Ganeemath (talk) 07:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ..... since this is the Main article about Azzam.-Ganeemath (talk) 07:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Osama bin Laden is just one of the countless mujahideen.-Ganeemath (talk) 07:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your mediation. I don't think we could have progressed without your help!-Ganeemath (talk) 07:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)