User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/My 2005 & 2006 contributions to Tablighi Jamaat

__NOINDEX__

See User:Geo Swan/Stale drafts An alleged association with the Tablighi Jamaat movement is a justification that Joint Task Force Guantanamo analysts have offered to justify the continued extrajudicial detention of dozens of Guantanamo captives.

In late 2005 I came across the allegation that ties Murat Kurnaz had to the movement was one of the main reason that he was sent to Guantanamo. I added that information to the Tablighi Jamaat article.

Admirers of the movement didn't like having the article cover the suspicions the movemnet triggered for Western counter-terrorism analysts. They kept removing that material even though:
 * It was written from a neutral point of view;
 * It cited verifiable, authoritative sources.

Admirers of the movement exicsed the allegations because they thought the allegations were flimsy; were baseless; were insulting; showed the JTF-GTMO analysts were unaware that the movement was non-political, and was founded on a principle of non-violence. I argued that none of this mattered. That the existence of the allegations was documented, from verifiable, authoritative sources. I argued it wasn't our place to try to interpret the sources for our readers, that we should simply provide the information, as neutrally as possible, and let our readers reach their own conclusions.

Allegations that Tablighi Jamaat has ties to terrorism
In the end I started Allegations that Tablighi Jamaat has ties to terrorism.

The lesson of this experience
I happen to largely agree with the admirers of the Tablighi movement. It includes 3 million people. Even if a dozen, or one hundred, or even one thousand potential al Qaeda recruits had used a Tablighi pilgrimage as a cover to explain why they were traveling to Pakistan, that would still leave 2,999,000 Tablighi pilgrims who weren't al Qaeda recruits.

My experience with these admirers reinforced for me
 * the importance of presenting our information from a neutral point of view; and letting our readers make up their own mind.
 * the danger of allowing wikipedians who form an opinion of the notability or credibility of material that does not rely on verifiable sources to suppress material that complies with policy.