Talk:Izz ad-Din al-Qassam

Prince Rashed Al-Khuzai

The Prince Rashed al-Khuzai section is two giant run-on sentences, obviously direct-translated from Arabic. I considered removing it altogether but will leave it up with a cleanup tag for anyone who wants a crack at it. --Sillimin (talk) 23:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Untitled

Is there any proof that Qassam founded the Black Hand? As far as I know, the Black Hand existed in 1919 while Qassam only found followers once he became imam of the Istiqlal Mosque. Please correct me if you have any sources refuting this. I am using the following source: Tom Segev, One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs Under the British Mandate (New York, Metropolitan Books), p. 130 (Black Hand) and p. 360 (Qassam).

Clarity

If you're going to edit this article, at least have the imperative to research the topic. Qassam's death hardly triggered the Arab Revolt of 1936. It was a good indicator of the resistance that was developing amongst the Arab population in Palestine, but it was not the catalyst that brought about action as the article indicates. Just as well, it does not add credibility to the article when you present it from an obviously biased perspective. Using terminology such as "carved up" brings about emotions which have no place in historical study. Whoever chose to edit this article with such disregard for factuality has further contributed to Wikipedia's decline as a credible source for information regarding the humanities. I'd say you should be ashamed of yourself, but it's already quite clear that you intended to cloud this controversial topic with polemics rather than provide an accurate perspective of the past. You won't be finding any recruits on Wikipedia, so please do leave history to historians, not propagandists.

istiqlal

the article presently points to the moroccan party called istiqlal. i guess that's wrong. Arre 10:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Coatracking etc.

NMMNG. It's not enough to assert that something is WP:COATRACK, which again is neither policy not relevant, if you read it.

(2) Now your argument is WP:CONSENSUS. Brewcrewer with a frankly meaningless objection, not based on policy, reverted. He was complaining of Tom Segev's style. No policy allows one to remove sourced matter because of a capricious objection to the style of the source's author. So his objection is vacuous, aside from being fatuous. So, since you alone have some pretension to a WP-based objection, explain yourself. Otherwise this is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:TAGTEAM, or just fishing to get me to break 1R. probably all three. Nishidani (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Fishing to get you to break 1RR? That's funny. You should see someone about that paranoia.

This is not an article about Ben Gurion. It is not even an article about people who fight Zionists. It's an article about a specific person who fought Zionists, among many other people. The information I removed is not relevant to this article and is obvious coatracking (in the sense of being a "cover for a tangentially related biased subject"), even if the article itself is not a COATRACK per wikipedia policy (although I noticed you do cite WP:COATRACK when it suits you, despite it not being policy) No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't be silly. Tom Segev is quoting Ben-Gurion's assessment of Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, and contextualizes his assessment of the man in terms of Ben-Gurion's general judgement about Arabs who opposed Zionism. Ben-Gurion's view is: were I an Arab, I'd oppose Zionism, and, in the case of an Arab like Izz ad-Din al-Qassam who opposed Zionism by taking up arms, the parallel is to Trumpeldor. Both earned glory for their commitment to active combat for their respective causes. Both statements occur in the same paragraph opf Tom Segev's article. It is relevant according to Segev to the passage no one reverts. It is not relevant to the subject only according to you, who think you know better than Segev, just as poor Brewcrewer thought Segev's quite plain English was 'atrocious' and therefore could be reverted as if I'd written it. I suppose the next step is to remove the analogy to Trumpeldor because it too is a coatrack element not pertinent to Izz ad-Din al-Qassam.Nishidani (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to butt in a little. I have no strong opinion about Ben Gurion's quote and as long as it's truthful (which I believe it is) I actually find it to be an interesting inclusion to the article especially the "Influence" section which should be renamed "Legacy" and expanded on. This looks more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. At any rate, I do caution everyone here to ease up with the edit warring seeing as this article falls under 1RR. Much of it needs to be cleaned up (I rewrote and expanded the first half a couple months ago, but didn't finish). I see Nish is taking a crack at it and I'll try to help as soon I can. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's say were we talking about an article about Pizza. Would it be ok to include a statement that Hitler (purposeful Godwin) said he likes Italian food? It's a general statement not specifically about the topic of the article. Like I said above, this is not an article about fighting Zionists. It's about a guy who fought all sorts of people, including Zionists. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but Hitler and Pizza, for instance, have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Izz ad-Din and Ben-Gurion on the other hand were part of the same struggle for pre-1948 Palestine even though they didn't engage each other directly. The inclusion of Ben-Gurion's opinion on the man is a nice feature. Likewise, it would be great if we had the opinion of another prominent Israeli from that period, as well as that of a prominent Arab, Palestinian or Englishman. This part (which I think you deleted), "who on occasion stated that had he been an Arab, he would have fought the Zionists," is indeed unnecessary. The rest is fine. --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

You can substitute Mussolini for Hitler if you prefer, but it seems we are in agreement about what should be in the article and what shouldn't. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 02:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

You may have missed my point somehow, but if we're in agreement that's all that matters. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

What NMMGG objects in terms of WP:COATRACK to is in virtually every article I have examined. But let's stick to Ben-Gurion, and see what happens if his ostensible objection were applied there.

David Ben-Gurion. Illegal Jewish migration led to pressure on the British to either allow Jewish migration (as required by the League of Nations Mandate) or quit – they did the latter in 1948, not changing their restrictions, on the heels of a United Nations resolution partitioning the territory between the Jews and Arabs.(This article is about DBG, not about the British and illegal jewish immigration!)

David Ben-Gurion. 'During this period, Palestinian fedayeen repeatedly infiltrated into Israel from Arab territory and attacked Israelis. Initially, small-scale infiltrations were mounted by refugees, often for economic reasons, but they were quickly adopted by the militaries of the neighboring Arab states, which organized them into semi-formal brigades. From 1954 onwards, the fedayeen began carrying out larger-scale guerilla actions. Thousands of attacks were launched, causing hundreds of Israeli casualties. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) could not effectively respond to these infiltrations..In October 1953, a raid by Unit 101 in the West Bank village of Qibya resulted in the deaths of 69 Arab civilians. The event became known as the Qibya massacre. The raid was universally condemned by the international community. Unit 101 was subsequently disbanded and merged into the Paratroopers Brigade. IDF units, especially the Paratroopers Brigade, continued to carry out retaliatory actions against Arab targets.(This article is about DBG, not about the British and illegal Palestinian infiltration!)

In May 1967, Egypt began deploying forces in the Sinai after expelling UN peacekeepers and closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping. This, together with the actions of other Arab states, caused Israel to begin preparing for war. The situation lasted until the outbreak Six-Day War broke out on 5 June. In Jerusalem, there were calls for a national unity government or an emergency government.(This article is about DBG, not about the Egypt, the 1967 war in which he played no roll!)

On 5 June, the Six-Day War began with a preemptive Israeli air strike that decimated the Egyptian air force. Israel then captured the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza Strip from Egypt, the West Bank and East Jerusalem from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria in a series of ground offensives.(This article is about DBG, not about the Egypt, the 1967 war in which he played no roll!)Nishidani (talk) 10:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

'This part (which I think you deleted), "who on occasion stated that had he been an Arab, he would have fought the Zionists," is indeed unnecessary.'

I beg to differ, Al-Ameer. Tom Segev thought it necessary, because he introduces the remark we now accept by contextualizing it in Ben-Gurion's broader view. Context is important in wiki articles, otherwise snippets just stand there without any circumstantial context. Were we to apply a 'law' of add only what is necessary, and nothing else, wikipedia articles would not be encyclopedic, but illustrations of Dickensian Gradgrindism. I think objections should be based on policy, and nothing else. Nishidani (talk) 11:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Compare this at Haj Amin al-Husseini, which the objectors are undoubtedly familiar with but have not taken exception to, on a page which bears strong analogies to this one.

historian Elpeleg, who formerly governed both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, compares him to Chaim Weizmann, David Ben-Gurion, and even to Theodor Herzl.

That bolded part is absolutely necessary as contextualization for reading the judgement which is then quoted. If there is one thing I demand of wikipedia, it is that editors should exhibit a cogent coherence in the principles that inform their judgement over pages. Nishidani (talk) 11:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Before I decided on whether or not the aforementioned part was needed I specifically determined if it was necessary for context and I found it not to be so. What is currently written in the article seems clear and contextual enough: David Ben-Gurion compared the glory that Izz ad-Din's actions aroused in the 1930s to the fame won in Zionist discourse by Yosef Trumpeldor. Recalling this, Tom Segev has argued that "The terrorists that al-Qassam led and the intifada fighters, more recently, may also be likened to the terrorists that Menachem Begin led." Adding Ben-Gurion's view that if he were an Arab he too would fight Zionists is an uncritical addition that might come off as saying "even the top Zionist would've fought the Zionists". I understand its additional role for context, but since it's not required to clearly communicate the current passage the article would be better off (neutrality and focus-wise) if we left it out. We could agree to disagree, but that's my opinion. --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I accept that. It's reasoned, and not pretextual, as were the reverts. Nishidani (talk) 20:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

lol. What a lucky coincidence that someone came by and was able to put my "pretextual" revert in terms you can agree with. Not that he said something completely different from what I did, but never mind. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with Al Ameer's idea of context, and 'necessity'. But he didn't adduce a spurious 'policy' (WP:COATRACK) to just revert. He didn't even revert. He followed the arguments, or assertions, and determined that there was a fair compromise, in which most of my original edit was retained, but the perfectly acceptable (per Segev) contextualization was not 'necessary', (even though it illuminates, which its excision does not) precisely why Ben-Gurion said what the text I added and which has been retained says. It's called collaborative editing, and since he didn't rush to join a revert war, and tried to find a third way, I am required to respect the fact that a third, neutral party, one that happens also to have administrative experience, disagrees with me. Since I had a view which was opposed by two on silly grounds, but is not shared by a third party, in conscience I can't persist in pushing that view in an edit. If you learn to interact that way, and indeed, if you actually begin to start contributing some actual work to the construction of this page, instead of kibitizing and using your revert rights, you might find me more amenable. The page would certainly benefit from a collaborative approach, rather than a knee-jerk revert attitude, as I've seen here. Nishidani (talk) 09:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I did not revert your whole edit, only the part I objected to. I explained why I removed it. Al Ameer's argument about necessity is not that different from my explanation. You accepted it when he said it because it was he who said it. He didn't find a "third way", he gave arguments that supported my revert. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The objection you made WP:COATRACK was not grounded in policy. You could well have argued this, but Brewcrewer's invariably poor judgement backing you did not help, in the absence of a clear objection. Al Ameer and I have almost never interacted, and never supported each other's edits as far as I can remember. He looked at the disagreement between you and I, and came down more or less in favour of removing the part you object to. There is a distinction between 'not necessary' (if you believe context must be pared down to the bone, which is untrue of most I/P articles) and WP:COATRACK which just implies my edit was jamming in irrelevancies. Nuance is everything to me. Since al Ameer's position, though differently motivated, made myself a minority of 1 against two (I never take Brewcrewer seriously) I accepted that this, which I regard as good context, as does Segev, is a minority opinion. Blame my mother, who always told me to watch not only my p's and q's but every other letter in the alphabet of our communicative instruments.Nishidani (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Sheikh Rashed Khuza'i

Could we just reduce this section by 70% or so and just merge it with whatever relevant section? It goes into a lot of information about Sheikh Rashed, his relationship with Sheikh Qassam and how he suffered because of his alliance with him. More concerning, the info is backed by a plethora of sources that are either dead links, unclear and/or unreliable. --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Have house guests will be busy, but go ahead. Correct on all points.Nishidani (talk) 20:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

immigrant cat

First, WP:BRD. Second, bring a source specifically calling al-Qassam an immigrant to Palestine. Absent that the category does not belong. nableezy - 14:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Article says he was born in Jableh, Syria, and visited a lot of Arab countries, before traveling "to Beirut by boat and then to Haifa, then under the British Mandate, where his wife and daughters later joined him."

And I still want a source specifically calling al-Qassam an immigrant to Palestine. It really was not a difficult to understand request. nableezy - 15:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

:And it's not difficult to understand that if a source says a person moves to another country where he was not born, then he is an immigrant. There is no source calling Shimon Peres an "immigrant", but he is included in the category because he wasn't born in Israel/Palestine.--Michael Zeev (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Multiple noes. There are a ton of sources for Peres immigrating to Palestine, among them this. Bring a source that directly supports the category you want to place in the article. It is a basic requirement, one that you should have figured out by now. nableezy - 15:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:get the point. I already showed you a source directly supporting al-Qassam emigration to Palestine: "From Tartus, al-Qassam traveled to Beirut by boat and then to Haifa, then under the British Mandate, where his wife and daughters later joined him." (in a section called "Establishment in Haifa")--Michael Zeev (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but no, you dont get to ignore basic requirements here. Either give a source that directly supports the category, ie says he was an immigrant to Palestine or immigrated to Palestine, or stop inserting the cat. nableezy - 14:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

This category is pov-ed. More a reliable source should precisely state that al-Qassam was an immigrant to justify this information is added in the article. Without this, this is an WP:OR and if true, WP:Undue. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Immigration is a formal act, requiring permissions, papers, passing through controls etc. In the fluid world of that period in the Middle East I don't what (but am now curious) the bureaucratic situation is, and, neither do you, Michael. You are for this reason engage in WP:OR. I'm sure some nutter could come up with a cat Immigrant to Canaan, . . but is would be an anachronism, just as it would be to make a cat on immigrants to Palestine apply to the Sephardim and then Ashkenazi of the 1600-1800s. The obsessive search for cat parity ,(Peres, Jewish, therefore what can be done to even the score with the 'Palestinians' Arafat, Qassam. .' .is rather ....) Nishidani (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Michael, ignore the soapboxing and attempts to railroad you. A quick google books search will come up with plenty of RS for this, but here's the first one I got - [1] Izz al-Din al-Qassam, the quintessential hero of the 1936-39 revolt was of Syrian origin. He left Syria and immigrated to Palestine because of a death sentence for his participation in the 1920 Ibrahim Hananu revolt. See S. Abdullah Schleiffer... It's by a professor of History and published by University of California Press so these guys can't ignore it or claim it's not good enough. Please leave me a message on my talk page if this kind of nonsense happens again. I'm not here often anymore. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:19, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Attempts to railroad? Asking for a source is nonsense now? Sunny disposition as always. nableezy - 06:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I gather you have no issues with the source, yes? I'll leave it to Michael to put the cat back in when his block is over. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 06:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

No I dont. And you may just want to do that yourself, Im guessing that there just might be a longer block coming. nableezy - 06:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Tom Segev in lead

Special:Contributions/Mevarus Pluto beat me to the revert. Calling an historian of distinction 'new' 'revisionist', or asserting contrafactually that he is not 'notable' etc., is quite a pointless exercise in opinionizing and not an argument. Leads summarize page content, and Segev's comparison, explored below, is aptly and succintly made for the introduction.Nishidani (talk) 09:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Izz ad-Din al-Qassam/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 03:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• Hi, al Ameer, I'll review this one. Too bad you've waited so long, I would had reviewed this long ago if I had seen it, but I mainly monitor the biology GAN section. FunkMonk (talk) 03:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
• Seems a bit of an oversight that the article doesn't mention he was a Sunni Muslim anywhere? Could be mentioned before Hanafi for example.
• " 1909 as a 'alim" Since 'alim starts with an a, perhaps "an" 'alim?
• "to engage in jihad ("struggle")" Term is mentioned in the previous section, so should be explained at first occurrence. Also,l is explained again under "Organization of armed struggle", which should be redundant.
• Some Islamic terms are explained, some are not, may be a good idea to read through the article and evaluate them one by one.
• "According to Edmund Burke", "According to Shai Lachman", perhaps it would be nice to mention nationality and occupation of such authors, for context.
• "cooperation increased after the 1929 riots" Could need a link.
• "Following the October 1935 discovery" Easter egg links are discouraged.
• "The manner of his last stand galvanized Palestinians at the time:" The following quote needs some sort of attribution.
• "In the long ensuing firefight, al-Qassam and three of his followers were killed, and five captured." Perhaps the date should be mentioned in this sentence?
• "Five months following the death of al-Qassam, members of his clandestine movement, known as "Qassamiyun"[9] or "Qassamites",[45] under the leadership of Farhan al-Sa'di, al-Qassam's spiritual heir, shot and killed two Jewish passengers of a bus traveling on the Tulkarm–Nablus road, a contributing factor to the start of the 1936–39 Arab revolt in Palestine.[45]" This sentence is very long and convoluted.
• Under legacy there are some names of people that could need some presentation.
• In one quote you use quotation marks, in another you don't.

Thanks for taking the time to review this article FunkMonk. I think I've addressed most of your points. I'm going to see if MoS Arabic says anything about transliterated Arabic words that start with "′a" because I'm not sure if using "an" would make sense here (it doesn't sound right orally speaking). And for your last point about the quotation marks, could you point me to where the marks are missing? Cheers --Al Ameer (talk) 19:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the quote under death has no quotation marks, but your two other quotes do. FunkMonk (talk) 06:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: I took care of it and your second point as well (couldn't find anything in MoS Arabic, so went ahead and took your suggestion). --Al Ameer (talk) 20:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

In that case, all I can do is pass! FunkMonk (talk) 05:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks again man. --Al Ameer (talk) 22:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

cat

What "Islamic terror group" did al-Qassam lead? nableezy - 16:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

The Black Hand. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

That article doesnt exactly support al-Qassam leading a faction that carried out "terror attacks". Or it being an "Islamic terror group". Speaking of which, I dont know what exactly Islamic terror group means, does it mean Islamist or made up of Muslims. That actually seems to have been created today, under the category, also created today "Islamist murderers". nableezy - 20:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Many people would consider the group's raid on civilian Jewish settlements (legal, pre-state places where Jews lived) and killing Jewish civilians to be terrorism, but your mileage may vary. I think "Islamist" is probably the correct term here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Then source it and include it. nableezy - 12:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

qadiriya tariqa not qadiriya sect.

The link is wrong and leads to the qadariya sect which is a sect that believed in free will, but he was a member of the tariqa Qadriyya followers of Abdul Qadir Jilani. 213.89.49.75 (talk) 08:57, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Can someone add the Arabic lyrics

Can someone add the Arabic original, along with the romanization, of the Libyan resistance anthem he created:

يا رحيم ويا رحمان
اُنْصُرْ مولانا السلطان
واكسر أعداءنا الطليان‎

I think a proper academic romanization would have been like this (if there is any error, please inform me too):

Yā Raḥīm, yā Raḥmān
Unṣur Mawlānā al-S̱ulṭān
Wa-ʾaksur ʾaʿdāʾunā al-Ṭalyān

I can't add it because my verification level isn't enough for it.
Best regards.
Beyaz Deriili (talk) 00:08, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

An updated photo of the grave (it was repaired)

Please consider the possibility of changing the photo of Al-Qassam's grave to this. MihMin (talk) 10:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Arab nationalist

@Al Ameer son: Why would you say he was not Arab nationalist or that his struggles weren't Arab nationalist or at least that he was influenced by Arab nationalist thought? [2] [3]. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: The Arab nationalist label was added by another user, and it was not supported by the article body, which is based on many specialist or scholarly sources on the subject. To introduce him as an Arab nationalist lacks nuance and accuracy. He found it practical to ally with the ideologically Arab nationalist Istiqlal party (having no other support from the political leaders in Palestine at the time, including the Mufti, whom he opposed anyway as being too complacent with British rule), but there is no indication he embraced the Arab nationalist ideology. During this period in Palestine and the wider region, there was plenty of convergence and mutual influence amongst people and activists with different ideologies or no particular political ideology fighting a common foe: British and French imperialism and Zionism, and Izz al-Din al-Qassam is probably a good example of this. The source you mention, Spencer Tucker, is not cited in the article body and is a generalist source—with so many better scholarly sources on Palestine out there, Wikipedia has no use for his textbook-type work in this topic area. I do not know much about the other source, which says he was influenced by Arab nationalism, but even if reliable and true it does not mean he was an Arab nationalist and that we should define him as such. Al Ameer (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)