Talk:Ahmed Rashid

Added the link to the "Der Spiegel interview", and here's my comment, free and unasked for:

Funny, how even "moderate" muslims on the one hand demand respect of Islamic culture from the West, but on the other hand do not show the least respect for core values of Western democracies, such as freedom of speech ("And what many Muslims found especially appalling was the fact that this is being painted as an issue of defending free speech against Islamic fundamentalism."). Oh, the hypocrisy ... Later, he goes on to blame the people at Jyllands Posten for the fact that fanatical muslims killed people over the incident. Why doesn't he blame the actual killers? Sorry, folks, how can you demand that other cultures accept responsibility when you don't accept the responsibility for your own side's zealous reactions, too? No party is blameless in this conflict, we'll have to meet in the middle somewhere if we want to resolve it. But the problem is that moderates in the West are too eager to blame themselves, and moderates in Arabia are too eager to blame the other side. And this, unfortunately, is fuel to the fire among extremists of both sides: The fanatic islamists who like to repeat their "The West is the devil"-sermons, and extremists in the West, who, as a reaction to being scapegoated, prefer to scapegoat the scapegoaters. Aragorn2 15:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Reply: Muslims do not regard unprovoked insults as "Freedom of Speech". If westerners do then we are different. Those cartoons were horribly offensive and unneeded and people have every right to protest and condemn that trash. The violent protests however were regrettable.

Criticism & Inaccuracies

I have removed the entire section to here:

In his 2003 book Jihad - the Rise of Militant Islam in Central Asia, Rashid argues that there are "strong links and cooperation between the rank and file" of Hizb ut-Tahrir and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan especially when they are from the same village or town. However, according to Jean-François Mayer of the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs; the insinuation ‘that the party (Hizb ut-Tahrir) will turn violent and has links with the IMU’ is inaccurate: the comments attributed to a member ‘contradicted the party’s ideas’. Representatives of Hizb ut-Tahrir report that they have repeatedly attempted to contact Ahmed Rashid in order to make their views known, but say they have not succeeded. They are even considering writing a rebuttal of his book

because

1. The lk is dead.
2. At http://www.mayer.info/bio/bio/english.html is the guy's bio, revealing that

   Between 1991 to 1998, Jean-François Mayer worked as an analyst in strategic and international affairs for the Swiss Federal Government, also serving as the secretary of the government's Situation Conference.

3. The job title "analyst" on its face implies preparing information for internal use; such people are, as a moment's thot will show, required not to speak publicly about the topics they analyze without very clear instructions to do so, and tight control over the wording where feasible, and rigorous instructions restricting the implications where (bcz of a need to extemporize in response to an unanticipated question) control over the wording is infeasible.

So not only do we no longer have a source for his statements, he also held the crucially relevant post attributed to him 5 years before publication of the book he supposedly criticized: the editor made a serious misrepresentation by insinuating that Mayer said it while he had a responsibility to avoid having his remarks falsely construed as reflecting government policy.
If there is a real controversy, e.g., in the form of allegations of an inaccuracy, we can cover it, but this author no longer has any presumption of having paraphrased Mayer accurately, and our coverage of any controversy abt Rashid must await new evidence.
--Jerzy•t 20:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I have re-removed this section, but not for the reasons posted above. Having read the link, it's clear that Mayer does not himself contradict or provide evidence against Rashid's conclusions; he merely quotes an "anonymous personal communication" with "representatives of Hizb ut-Tahrir" who voice their disagreement. The criticism is not reflected in any other major media outlet, and it's obvious that Rashid's statement is presented as an informed opinion rather than a hard-line fact. Wikipedia can't possibly catalogue every individual disagreement with a scholar's opinions, and Mayer's singular counterargument (which is, in itself, quite weakly sourced) shouldn't be considered worthy of encyclopedic inclusion. TremorMilo (talk) 10:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

2013

I have just read the new Spiegel interview http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-with-ahmed-rashid-on-the-failures-of-the-west-in-afghanistan-a-874034.html and was impressed by his (chilling) analysis but not by his remedies. The invitation of private enterprise to Afghanistan is rather sweet, but rather delusional in my view. What he forgot was the oil concession in the North of Afghanistan to China which might at least bring some patchy progress there. Better than nothing.

In the biography main article, I am missing Rashid's background. Everybody from Pakistan or Afghanistan who can read and write and went to school in England must come from a priviledged background and it helps us understand when we know what kind of priviledged background that is. Looking at the mentioning of who his sister is married to, that must be some kind of what we call nobility. For instance, it helps us understand Pakistan and the Bhuttos to see that Bhutto Sr. was a Maharadja and he was married to a Kurdish Princess. Benazir Bhutto's brother was married to an Afghan Princess. That explains to us why the Bhuttos are always on top of Pakistan as it were. Maybe someone can insert Rashid's background, noble or otherwise. 144.136.192.32 (talk) 06:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)