Talk:Ahmed Yassin/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Questions, Answers, Discussion

I cant find in this page how he got into the hamas. the article says he reassumed the leadership of hamas after his release, but it doesnt tell how he assumed the leadership. I wonder wich where his motivations, and why this important part of this man´s life was supressed from the article. I will research it and come back when i have the information, and ask my fellow wikipedians to help me in this. there is a good obituary at http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1175854,00.html?79%3A+International+news+-+guardian , can it be added to the external links? Manco

I Thought id let you all know that Ahmed Yassin never studied at a Midrasa (an islamic religious school) and therefor is not a Sheikh. While he may have been at one time a religious leader for some, he never studied to achieve the title of "sheikh"- a fact that has been overlooked by the media. To call Ahmed Yassin "Sheikh" is to assign a negotive, and inaccurate conotation to the realm of Islamic religious leadership. -Your Average Jewish Private School Activist

Yassin both studied at a Madrassa, and founded several. you are wrong.

Yes, he is wrong. Why Yassin is called sheikh is explained here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheikh

How can he be a "founder" if the group existed for three years before he took it over? Surely there must be a better way to say whatever is being said here, but I don't know what that is. -- Someone else 19:34 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The way I read it, He ws a founding member, there was another leader, then after three years there was another leader.. Yassin.

Is there any truth to his being born near the town of Labbikudikadu near Tiruchi in India. (This keeps getting reverted on the entry.) Would that be in Tiruchirappalli District? If that were true he'd be neither an authentic refugee of the '48 war nor an authentic "sheikh." He turned up first in Egypt, right?Wetman 18:30, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What Evidence do you have to support this?

Shrug, yahoo said he was a founder and the article called him the founder before I edited it. Pizza Puzzle

Now that he is dead.. or so is claimed, will there be massive trouble in Palestine? This is all such ridiculous fighting. The power he yielded despite his physical deficiencies! Solow137.132.3.10 04:11, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What the hell's wrong with Sharon!??? It's too bad that we don't get to add to this article that this colossal blunder might've been the result of Sharon either being senile, irrational, or simply in a bad mood because he's been having trouble going to the bathroom or something. Someone needs to save Israel from the sycophants of the Israeli hardliners. 172 12:54, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Probably its a result of Sharon's last stall tactic (the so-called Israeli one-sided retreat from Gaza) failure to hold the public's interest long enough, and people starting again to take notice of the many police investigations regarding corruption and bribery related to the Prime Minister and his close family. Sharon needed a quick distraction. --Noop

A smart move IMHO. Is there any doubt that Hamas would have hesitated to kill Sharon or any other Israeli if they had a clear shot? Presumably the infernal regions are cooled down to room temperature by now, the "gates of hell" having been opened so many times. :-) Stan 17:13, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yassin is dead, and the world still happy to get rid of him. I don't if it will start mass riots but all the Hamas leadership is now wetting its pents. MathKnight 05:58, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I deleted the information that the helicopter gunship was American made and added that it was an Israeli gunship. If I shoot you with a Colt 45 it is more significant that I shot you than that Colt manufactured the weapon. Guns don't kill; people kill. Also, it seemed to me not NPOV. wgoetsch 00:36, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Article prominence

Warning - A google search for "Ahmed Yassin" brings our this article up third, so prepare for a massive number of edits (probably most of them vandalism) in the next 24 hours. →Raul654 07:38, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

Death in car?

The reports I saw indicate that the missiles were fired at a car carrying Yassin. e.g.: Yassin was killed Monday at daybreak, when Israel Air Force helicopters fired missiles at a car carrying the wheelchair-bound head of the radical Islamic group as he left a mosque near his house in Gaza City. [1] - so I changed the article accordingly. -- uriber 16:47, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The BBC, at least, seems very much sure that the he was killed whilst in his wheelchair outside on the street, in multiple radio, television, and print news stories so far today...

James F. (talk) 18:04, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yup. Sorry - my wrong (I see it was already corrected). Haaretz is usualluy very reliable on the facts - but they misled me this time. -- uriber 18:12, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Filthy NEWS!

Sheikh Yassin NEVER called PALESTINE "Land of israel" simply because it's not and will never be!

And as we see, it's not about Israel, it's about hating Jews... Stan 17:13, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Oh my God!! They killed Saruman!!!

oh man are you funny. sound like u need some pussy in your life dawg.

File:Ac.yassin.jpg

Sheikh Ahmed Yassin

TDC 22:15, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

ITYM Saruman :P DopefishJustin 02:03, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

The older you get, the more your genuine nature shows!

---

No, my friend. They killed Saruman.

--cuiusquemodi 03:09, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

Would it be in bad taste to put the Shiek's picture into that article? →Raul654 03:12, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)(Note, that was a joke)

• Would it be in bad taste to say he died sitting in the Leon Klinghoffer Memorial Wheelchair? -- Tweak

Can the wheelchair be wiped down and repaired? (User:Wetman)

Nah, they'd probably just turn it into a shrine. →Raul654 03:35, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

Opening of Hell gates.

Well, guys..I am a professor from ulu ulu university...according to my intellect...i made some educated forecast on what will happen and it definitely does, lead us to the Hell...Why would i say that?

Let's conclude things. 911 started the war against terrorism and then Afghanistan, Iraq war. Saddam Hussein captured. North Korea on the nuclear and Japan down on economics and deployed 1000 troops to Iraq. Spain changed government bcuz of the sudden attack. Taiwan's president sworn in and the stocks felled 10%. Now Yassin fell.

Now, let's predict. Hamas will strike Israel and America, that's for sure. Another killing, namely Saddam Hussein, might start Jihad. Then Islamic fighters will attack European countries. Then, with two countries down, and America suffering a biological attack, the stocks markets will plunge into the next financial crisis. Japan and North Korea, will wage war due to economics downturn and will probably attack Taiwan and China.

Then, with the outburst of all the sudden changes, America is set to split due to George and Kerry. Phillipines, Indonesia will be under terrorist control while Singapore and Malaysia fight against it. Israel might fall, yet again, to Islam fighters. The firing of the nuclear weapon from NOrth Korea and start havocs all around and most probably at America. America Falls. And thus come a King who call for peace, the third and final antichrist(most probably Islamic) , who calls himself the God.

Well, if u think this prediction is logical enough, then prepare yourself.

Yours Truthfully, Flame.

Muslims don't call themselves god you ignoramus. Tell your fairy tales to your 5th grade buddies

Damn! I missed the first two antichrists? You turn your back for a minute.... -- Tweak

---

Zero, you wrote in a recent edit summary:

(cur) (last) . . 13:52, 23 Mar 2004 . . Zero0000 (see Talk for explanation)

I'll check back in an hour or so for the explanation... --Uncle Ed 14:13, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ooops, I put it on the wrong talk page (Talk:Hamas). Here 'tis:

He was both a spiritual leader and a political leader. The extent to which he controlled the organization in its daily business is disputed, though it is clear that he gave it the general direction. It is not only "the supporters of Hamas" who use the phrase "spiritual leader", unless you think that the Israeli newspaper Haaretz and the New York Times are Hamas supporters. (I guess some people do.) Even the Israeli government description goes somewhat in this direction by calling him "the godfather of the suicide bombers" rather than the father.

--Zero 14:31, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for my impatience. I actually read that paragraph at Hamas. I guess there's going to be some overlap of talk between that page and this for a few days. --Uncle Ed 14:36, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Why is "Sheikh" part of the article title, it is not part of the name, it is a title, a religous title. -- Isam

Good point. It's an honorary title, anyway. I'm going to move Sheikh Ahmed Yassin to Ahmed Yassin. --Uncle Ed 16:54, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Behold the power of Wikipedia

Between March 1 and March 22, this article got approximately 160 hits. Between March 22 and today, it has gotten (approximately) 84,800 hits. It also jumped from #3 on google to number #1. Impressive. →Raul654 07:50, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

But in the meanwhile, with the photo flipped, we get quite an unusual face for Ahmed Yassin to be presenting Wetman 17:20, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)~

Don't get me wrong....

....It's about both : hating jews AND israel....

About Yassin's wheelchair...

...They'd definitely not give it to sharon to sit on, he's too FAT (and UGLY) for that.

Why you need to be slim and good looking like Yassin to sit on it. LOL Oh and have 12 children! in addition to that.

On Hamas

Ed, don't you think it's worth stating in the intro that Hamas, the group Yassin led, is a Palestinian Islamist group? Why did you remove that? Everyking 17:19, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Regarding Yassin's date of birth: it does not seem to be known, but in my searching I find it is variously given as 1936, 1937 and 1938, with 1936 the most common. Two sites are more precise: June 1936 and December 18, 1936. So I think we should at least not give the date flatly as 1937, unless someone else has better info confirming '37. Perhaps simply a question mark after 1936? Everyking 03:31, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Also: It seems his passport listed his DOB as January 1, 1929, but Yassin himself said he was born in 1938. Who knows? Everyking 03:37, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

English Speaking Democracies

Most of the international community condemned the assassination of Yassin, although two major English-speaking democracies reiterated their position that Israel has a right to defend itself.

What are those two English speaking democracies?

And, how could he/she have managed to relate those three: speaking English, being a democracy and defending the assasination?

I'm not quite sure this is accurate. The security council resolution codemning the assasination was vetoed by the United States with Germany, Romania, and the United Kingdom abstaining. [2]

"Sheikh"?

Shouldn't "Sheikh" be in quotes, given that as the article makes clear it was an honorary title "awarded" by his followers?

No... Shiekh in arabic means "Old man", and is a respective title for any old person. It can be refered to any old revered person in an arabic country.

THANK you.. Islam doesn't have any official religious ranks like the priesthood. A knowledgeable person in Islam could be thought of as a sheikh even if he never attended a school.

12 children—how many wives?

Title says it all. Does anyone know how many women were mothers to his 12 children? Godfrey Daniel 19:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Answer: More than Yasser Arafat but not as many as Ibn Saud. Speaking of Arafat I wonder what his relatives think of his wife now secrety going back to Christianity (she has pictures of Christ in her home) and his daughter having the possibility of marrying a European when she gets older.

Wasn't his wife always Christian? AFAIK she never converted... In any case, I suspect most of them would be happy if his wife and daughter are able to live their lives in peace and relative happiness, unlike most Palestinians (thanks in no small part to Israel) Nil Einne 14:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

"Fascist" ?

The paragraph about "stand up to the Fascist State of Israel" is not neutral-point-of-view.

Should Ahmed Yassin be included in Category:Terrorists or not?

A very minor "revert war" has been going on for the last few days, with User:Freiheit94 and User:68.84.56.191 on one side (against inclusion), and User:Humus sapiens and myself on the other side (for inclusion). I find this a bit silly, and I think we sould try to come to some form of understanding here. OK?

My view: To be included in Category:Terrorists, a person must fulfill these criteria:

1. Use of unlawful violence or the threat of unlawful violence.
2. Targeting civilians.
3. Absence of a state of war (specifically conventional warfare), thus excluding war crimes
4. Designed to coerce, frighten, or "send a message" to the public or a government (thus excluding organized crime performed for personal gain).

As far as I can see, all of these are covered in the article. The article may possibly be insufficiently sourced and referenced, but that's not the point. As the article stands right now, Yassin must be included in Category:Terrorists.

Oddly enough, him having been the co-founder and leader of a designated terrorist organization, does not (in itself) seem to qualify him for inclusion in Category:Terrorists! This makes me think that the definition of the category is faulty.

BTW: Category:Terrorists is currently a candidate for deletion, along with many other "terrorist categories" (link).

All comments are welcome. --Wasell 13:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Ahmed Yassin should not be labeled a terrorist.

I read over the histroy of edits on this page. I totally agree with Freiheit94 and that other user that Ahmed Yassin should not be labeled a terrorist. You explicitly state that the definition of terrorist is YOUR own, Mr. Wassell. Wikipedia is not about OUR views, it's about objectivity. Terrorism itself is a realtive term, and there should not even be a category for terrorists. Ahmed Yassin in other cirlces is viewed as a resistance fighter. Second, according to YOUR definition of terrorist, Nelson Mendalla would have fit the bill some 30 years ago. Do you dare call Mr. Mendalla a terrorist? I am not trying to attack your personal views, for you are entitled to regard anyone as you please. However, this is not the place to share our POVS. This is a place to showcase knowledge objectively. Thanks Aljazzera44 16:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, that definition of terrorism is not my own. It's the definition stated in Category:Terrorists. That's why I refered to that category umpteen times. And if you want to add that category to the article on Nelson Mandella, feel free to do so. --Wasell 20:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see, this term is relative.

To Palestinians he's a hero, to Israelis he's a terrorist. Wikipedia should not side with one view, and disregard another. So let's not label him a hero or a terrorist, let's not label him anything at all, let's state the facts and let the reader decide how they feel about Yassin. 74.92.77.194 16:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Palestininans may view terorists as heros, but that does not change the fact that he is a terrorist, similarly, kooks in the US who view Timothy McVeigh as a hero does not change the fact that McVeigh was a terrorist. -- Avi 17:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not only Palestinians, but Muslims, Arabs, and many Europeans, Black Africans view him as hero. And please do not use racial or pejorative terms when discussing. It is only Israelis that view him as a terrorist and their US backers in congress. This encyclopedia is for everyone not just Israelis. Aljazzera44 17:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Let us try this again. The fact that some may view a terrorist as a hero does not remove the person from the class of terrorist. Secondly, for you to say that Yassin was neither anti-Semitic nor anti-Zionist goes against everything Yassin said. You are doing his memory a grave disservice. I am sure that he is not happy with your portrayal of him as a Jew-lover and Israel lover . Here, let me bring a quote of the late Sheikh:

Suicide attacks and jihad reinforce national unity in the ranks.…Our voice is one of struggle, of jihad and of suicide….Iraq could win if it equipped its citizens with explosive belts and turned them into human bombs.

— Ahmed Yassin, Interview with the Muslim website Alskifa, January 10, 2003

If those are not the wrods of a terrorist, what is? There is no argument that Yassin was a terrorist, and anti-Semite, and an anti-Zionist, and I would think that reverting that information is nothing more than POV whitewashing. -- Avi 17:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I will concede that he was anti-Zionist. There is nothing wrong with that, most learned people with a true sense of justice will be anti-Zionist, considering it is a racist ideology based on religious exclusivity. Now, let's talk about the terrorist label. Ahmed Yassin never himself engaged in terroristic acts. He attempted to liberate the Palestinians from Israeli oppression. Therefore, the means he used justified the end. I do not condone terrorism. But Israel's war is not one against terror, it is one against the liberation of the Palestinian people and their right to self-determination. Aljazzera44 18:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

So, someone advocating a struggle of jihad and suicide, and of equpping people with belts to turn them into human bombs is not a terrorist?! Pray tell, in your mind, what does construe a terrorist?! -- Avi 19:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

What constitutes a terrorist is realtive, personally I think Al-Qaeda are full-fledged terrorists, but I respect Hezbollah and Hamas as legitimate resistance movements, since they are fighting for a specific national cause with a local, not a global, agenda. Second, the The Haganah and the The Irgun engaged in terroristic activities in order to establish the State of Israel and they are designated as National Liberation movements while Hamas and Hezbollah are designated as terrorist organizations on wikipedia. That is absolute and blatant bias on the part of some editors here. Aljazzera44 18:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

According to Article 4.1.2 of the Third Geneva Convention, neither Hamas nor Hezbollah qualify as organized resistance movements as they do not carry arms openly, nor have a sign recognizable at a distance (like theinsignia on tanks or planes, or a uniform). Also, in general, one who founds a terrorist organization is a terrorist. -- Avi 16:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess the CIA is a terrorist organisation then as it has founded several terrorist organisations...?

Paraplegic or tetraplegic

The article currently states he is paraplegic. However he is listed in the tetraplegic article as tetraplegic... Which one is correct? Nil Einne 14:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

How about a more flattering picture than the current one?

Is it really fair to put up such an unflattering picture of Ahmed Yassin in his article? If someone knows where to find a nice picture of this great Palestinian hero, please replace the old one with it. Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.84.56.191 (talk • contribs).

I fully agree. Actually, "unflattering" is too mild a word; this picture makes him look like a blithering idiot! The article would probably be better off without it. A much better picture is used on ar: and eo:, but that one doesn't seem to be properly licensed. Does anyone know where we can get a good free picture? --Wasell 10:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

And this is an even better picture, but appears to have license problems, and will probably soon be deleted from the severs. Dang! --Wasell 11:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Why should we strive to have a flattering picture of Yassin instead of an accurate one? You may think that he looks like a "blithering idiot", but he was merely an elderly man confined to a wheelchair - real people look like real people regardless of the idol worship or antipathy directed towards them. As far as licensing issues are concerned, the current pic is not licensed but sourced. The Associated Press pics hosted at the .ar & .eo Wikis are watermarked but unsourced, and have no detailed rationale. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Not a more flattering picture but a less unflattering one! This kind of wiesel tactic is being used all over Wikipedia and it's quite pathetic... Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had one for ages before it was changed, even Mel Gibson did for quite a while too. So can someone please find a normal photo with proper licensing like this one this, that would be much appreciated by everyone. Yas121 00:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Alleging the use weasel tactics is somewhat less productive than producing a sourced alternative or drafting a fair use rationale. I wish you luck in finding a flattering picture of a disabled geriatric. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Current picture is fine. Amoruso 12:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

"Category:Terrorists or not?" – revisited

Now that Category:Terrorists has survived another CfD (albeit with a result of "no consensus"), I think we should re-examine the arguments for and against Ahmed Yassin's inclusion in that category.

I reiterate my arguments for his inclusion in this category:

• He obviously and verifiably fits the five criteria stated in Category:Terrorists, and as far as I can see in the discussion above, nobody has disputed this.
• He was the founder and leader of a group that is classified as a terrorist organisation by numerous states and supernational organisation. This is also undisputed.

My interpretation of the arguments against his inclusion (paraphrased from above):

• "The term 'terrorism' is subjective, relative or illdefined" — Irrelevant. This is not about the colloquial usage of words. This is about the applicability of a Wikipedia category, and that category is sufficiently objective and well defined.
• "Many regard him as a hero" — Irrelevant. It is quite possible to be both a hero and a terrorist. It is even more possible to be regarded as hero and still be a terrorist. Some people think of Timothy McVeigh and Andreas Baader as heroes, but they are, nevertheless, terrorists.
• "With a strict adherence to the definition, others (like Nelson Mandela) would have to be included" — Utterly irrelevant. This is not a kindergarten fight. The only relevant question here, is whether the character string "[[Category:Terrorists]]" should be place on this particular page, or not. If you think that it should also be added to some other page, then go ahead and add it there.

My conclusion is that that Ahmed Yassin must be included in Category:Terrorists.

Any thoughts?

(BTW: I will reinsert this category, until I have seen reasonable arguments not to do so.)

--Wasell 13:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Ahmad Yassin was certainly a vocal rhetorical supporter of terrorism which his group and conducted (in addition to being a racist bigot of the lowest order) -- but unless there's some specific evidence that he had a somewhat direct personal role in facilitating or ordering specific attacks, then it may not be accurate to call him a terrorist tout court (as opposed to a terrorist-cheerleading asshole). AnonMoos 13:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I think WP:CIV applies here. Using names like that is unacceptable, whatever you may think of him.

As to your main point: Don't you think that his "cheerleading" is a "threat of unlawful violence"? I think it is. --Wasell 14:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Whatever -- Yassin is not a Wikipedia editor, and I did not include the language in an article, or propose that it be included in an article. The reason I used the language was to make it crystal-clear that I regard Yassin as an evil man who perverted religion to support his hatreds -- yet I'm not convinced that he can fairly be called a "terrorist". If he sits in his corner and acts as a pro-terrorism ideologue and incitement propagandist, then he's undeniably a fairly worthless excuse for a human being (in my opinion) -- but it's doubtful whether he can be called a "terrorist", unless he had a fairly direct and personal operational, logistics, or command role with respect to specific terrorist acts. Your comments so far, and what's on the article as of now, do not seem to show this. AnonMoos 17:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the tempremental, misguided little boy AnonMoos. There is no proof that he was directly involved in any terroristic activity. And AnonMoos, spare us your opinion, it's infantile and poorely developed. Wasell, you lone Scandanavian racist, please stop trying to push your bigotted POV. It's not our fault your miserably frigid nation is now overrun by immigrants. Thanks—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.84.56.191 (talk • contribs) 20:47, October 2, 2006 (UTC)

Please remain civil. Thank you. -- Avi 02:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)