Talk:List of Muslim soldiers

This article was nominated for deletion on 9 March 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on April 8, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 21 February 2006. The result of the discussion was transferral to talk discussion.

Mujahdeen and Muslim soldiers[edit]

Why on earth is this article nominated for deletion...its baseless...guys keep up the good job in the article mujeerkhan 23.15, 17 june 2006 (UTC)

Good article? Um, no... "Tikka Khan- Lt Gen Tikka Khan Hero of 1965 War ( Pakistan ) Noor Khan Air Marshel Noor Khan Lagend Even Praised By Israeli Air Marshel for his ability Sajjad Haider Commodor Sajjad Haider Holds world record for eliminating severalindian fighter Jets in Seconds in 1965 indo pak war Muhammad Mahmood Alam Hold world record for destroying most fighter planes in a single flight in 1965 war Hassan Nasrallah - Commander in Chief Hizbollah, Army of God (Lebenon). Victorious Muslim General of the 21st century. Muammar al-Gaddafi Bashar Al-Assad Osama bin Laden(former CIA agent, comes from wealthy oil rich family from KSA. Muhammad Mullah Omar(The Rightly Guided Caliph of modern times regarded by so called mujahideens, mostly wahabis following religion of abdul wahab and like to call themselves Muslims, when they are not. . )" It's like a Muslim version of Oliver North's show "War Stories" :/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.118.104 (talk) 11:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At present state both Mujahdeen and Muslim soldiers articles are useful and gives different information. We should keep both articles. --Spasage 06:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of list[edit]

One of the things that was mentioned in the AFD was the difference between a muslim soldier and a mujahid. It might be useful to go into more detail about that and what qualifies someone to be on this list. For example, would James Yee go on it? Also, it might make more sense for the century subheadings to be given as 500s or 6th Century rather than 500 and other specific years. I'd do it myself, but wanted to see what other people thought. The opening also mentions "Some of the older entries may be more accurately be described as warriors, and some as militia." It might be useful to go into more about what that means, as I can't really tell. Шизомби 22:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think as it stands, (the criteria may need a little refinement) Yee wouldn't be on the list; nor should he. The first part specifies leadership roles - generals etc; the second those 'of particular note' - in western terms, Audie Murphy 'might' get on such a list, but not every CMH or VC would. I don't think it would form a useful list if it started to include every soldier, mujahid, martyr etc. I agree on the century markings - & perhaps list both Islamic & CE centuries.Bridesmill 22:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To include Muhammad Ibn 'abd Al-karim Al-khattabi in the "List of Muslim soldiers" is to deny his political views. His struggle was for national independence, it was not religious.

And that's all I have to say about that.

I don't think the list relates to anything being religious in particular. They're all muslims, but doesn't necessarily mean they were fighting for religious purposes. MikeLynch (talk) 05:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence shows why this page is strange[edit]

The first sentence of this page can be applied to any fighter warrior irregardless if there Muslim or not.....And by the way.......If you scroll down it lists Osama Bin Laden lol. 71.119.255.31 01:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete![edit]

It's plain simple. Just delete. This is silly. List of Muslim soldiers?

Hear me. In my country, Indonesia, 80% of its populations are Muslims. Indonesian military have 400.000 soldiers. So we should list approximately 80% of them each other. And we should include other Muslim countries, or soldiers from non-Muslim country who are Muslims. So if this article is really SERIOUS, there will be approx. 4 millions or so names here. AND IT'S SILLY.

And we could create pages with similar themes. List of Muslim lawyers, list of Muslim engineers, list of Muslim-whatever-common-job-type. And List of Christian soldiers (there will be approx. 10 millions or more), List of Christian lawyers, etc. AND IT's SILLY.

It doesn't match the criteria of notability at all.

You should remember WHAT WIKIPEDIA IS, and WHAT WIKIPEDIA IS NOT.

In Harmonia Progressio! (talk) 16:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I propose to change the name of this article to List of Muslim military leader. And it will need a major wikifying so it'll be more encyclopedic.In Harmonia Progressio! (talk) 16:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there is NO NEED for this article. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. There are articles like List_of_Muslims, List_of_Christians. Refer Wikipedia:SALAT. Regards. MikeLynch (talk) 05:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erm... ok, but nobody is saying delete List_of_Muslims because it has a counterpart in List_of_Christians. Where is the List_of_Christian_Soldiers? Nowhere. It is a bizarre term that has no truly defined meaning, nor any counterpart in any other group. There is apparently a "need" for this, yet no need for the larger list of Christian/Jewish/Hindu/etc counterparts, nor any effort to associate every soldier with his religion in any other grouping. Baalthazaq (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Actually, this list is quite useful, or has the potential to be--a single place where oan get info and connect with various historical military figures within Islam. However, as I see it, please, it needs (a) to be defined properly i.e. lets say that it truly contains a list of historical warriors/soldiers, with a proven notability and historical role, only this should be retained (b) the list should pl be revised and arranged in proper chronological order, I see its supposd to be but isnt and (c) should be decided up to when it should go-- should newer (post 20th c) names be added yet? etc-- with a little thought, dicusssion, organisation and work/effort, it can be a useful encylcopedic document. ThanksKhani100 (talk) 05:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)Khani100[reply]