The Taliban collection (2006 onwards)

[Entropy]

It depends on the context the term is used. When most westerners refer to the "Taliban" in the context of the Afghanistan opposition group, they are talking about the "Quetta Shura" which did control most of Afghanistan, was a de facto government (if not de jure) and seeks to regain its former status.

[slapout9]

It depends on the context the term is used. When most westerners refer to the "Taliban" in the context of the Afghanistan opposition group, they are talking about the "Quetta Shura" which did control most of Afghanistan, was a de facto government (if not de jure) and seeks to regain its former status.

Is this why they say there is a good Taliban and a bad Taliban so to speak?

[davidbfpo]

Slap,

Is this why they say there is a good Taliban and a bad Taliban so to speak?

I suspect the concept of the good and bad Taliban has been around for awhile, but has gained momentum intellectually with authors like David Kilcullen and in-country by those double-dealing types who try to split off the good from the bad.

It always amuses me that few outside Afghanistan and those immersed in the country know how many ex-Taliban or ex-Mujh defected before 2001 - notably Abu Sayyaf (sorry unable to readily find a source for this as Google returns the group named after him).

I know of one in-country observer of the Taliban regime who thought their initial practical appeal - bringing law and order - was a smokescreen for their known "radical" views on religion. When they gained local and swiftly wider, not national power, many locals learnt the hard way what Taliban rule meant. That said the ruling elite were Afghans and not "volunteers" from Pakistan.

davidbfpo

[tequila]

You're thinking of this distinguished Afghan lawmaker and noted Friend of bin Laden. Sayyaf was the one who invited bin Laden back to Afghanistan after he got booted from the Sudan.

However Abdul Sayyaf was never a member of the Taliban, a good example of the narcissism of small differences.

[rdodson]

First, they do not speak Arabic in Afghanistan, and while, like English, there are Arabic terms in Pashtu and Dari, in Pashtu the focal point for the term Talib is student. As used by the Afghani, Talib means student, Taliban is plural for student and they are usually drawn from the Madrassas. Omar's group were in fact his students.....

Western press, as is often the case to make things simple, attribute the term to all insurgents in Afghanistan. This is incorrect. Gulbuddin Hekmatyar has his HIG, and the Haqqani's are rulers of the Haqqani Network. While there is interaction with the groups, each, as noted, is under its own Shura Council.

Mullah Omar leads the Quetta Council, Mullah Bradder the Geri Jangle Council, and we have the Peshawar Council.

Hekmatyar and the Haqqanis operate in the same general area, Omar in the South and Brader in the West.

[Entropy]

Is this why they say there is a good Taliban and a bad Taliban so to speak?

Maybe so. President Karzai, for example, used to be in Omar's Taliban, but quit when it became too radical. Probably not a good example

Seriously though, I'm don't really know except to say, like others noted, that "Taliban" means "students" and, like anywhere, there is a spectrum of political and religious belief in Afghanistan.

[William F. Owen]

Hebrew for "Student" is Talmid - not so far off, I would submit.

[slapout9]

So basically it is students from madrassas that engage in revolutionary/insurgent warfare?

[omarali50]

So basically it is students from madrassas that engage in revolutionary/insurgent warfare?

It depends. It depends on whatever rules you want to set up for yourself. You may wish to use the term for the taliban regime that existed in Afghanistan and supposedly now operates from Quetta. Or you could follow the example of the locals in the tribal areas of Pakistan and refer to the local Islamist groups (loosely affiliated with the afghan variety, but not necessarily under tight control of Mullah Omar) as taliban. Or you could use it as a semi-pejorative term for all wannabe jihadis all over the world. In India, you can even use the term "Hindu taliban" when you want to attack the Hindutva fascists (they have their own religious fanatics and can be very bloodthirsty, as seen in the massacres in Gujrat state). The Hindutva fascists will then call all their critics "taliban", meaning they accuse them of being islamist sympathizers or fellow travelers....and so on.
What Imran Hossein says about mosques and islamic centers is exaggerated but not totally untrue. All muslims (even all "observant muslims") are certainly not terrorists or even terrorist sympathizers, but orthodox Islam (not just some "misunderstanding of Islam") developed in a time of Islamic supremacy and was closely associated with the rise and success of the early Arab-Islamic empire. The laws and theology that evolved were in line with the needs of that imperial religious state. They are harsh about dealing with apostates (by definition, traitors to the cause) and blasphemers and relegate other religions to subservient status or worse (pagans get it bad, Christians and Jews not so much). They are also big on holy war since you cannot have an imperial state without a motivated imperial army. By the standards of the age, I dont think that caliphate (and we are primarily talking of the peak of the Abbassid caliphate as most of the theology and all the legal codes date from that period) was particularly intolerant. In fact, a very good case can be made that they were remarkably tolerant by contemporary standards (remember, this is the time when European Christians were launching massive genocidal campaigns of forced conversion and purification in Eastern Europe and Scandinavia, not to speak of local actions like the genocide of the cathars, which actually happened well after the Abbasids had said good bye). But no current European state idealizes those actions (or laws like the whipping you could get for not going to church on Sunday in Calvinist Geneva), but Islamist discourse ran into some kind of mysterious brick wall 800 years ago (mongols??) and hasnt moved much since then (not in Sunni lands, the shia are actually more flexible). So if you become an observant Muslim, you dont necessarily become a medieval islamic supremacist because even observant muslims dont usually read and closely follow those legal codes, but you do acquire a general idea that orthodox Islamic law (shariah law) is some sort of beautiful ideal (but one you have never actually consulted). Then one day some moron approaches you in the mosque to convince you that you need to start hating the infidels a bit more; you are not convinced, but he gets you the books and lo and behold, they do actually talk of hating infidels, waging holy war and beating recalcitrant wives. At this point, said observant muslim can either silence his inner fanatic and avoid his new found friend in the mosque (a choice that is far more common than Imran Hossein implies: human beings tend to know which side their bread is buttered, even observant muslims tend to know that) OR he or she can gradually become more and more fanatical and some small but non-trivial subset will start to dream of the lesser jihad....welcome to the shoe bomber.

[slapout9]

It depends. It depends on whatever rules you want to set up for yourself. You may wish to use the term for the taliban regime that existed in Afghanistan and supposedly now operates from Quetta. Or you could follow the example of the locals in the tribal areas of Pakistan and refer to the local Islamist groups (loosely affiliated with the afghan variety, but not necessarily under tight control of Mullah Omar) as taliban. Or you could use it as a semi-pejorative term for all wannabe jihadis all over the world. In India, you can even use the term "Hindu taliban" when you want to attack the Hindutva fascists (they have their own religious fanatics and can be very bloodthirsty, as seen in the massacres in Gujrat state). The Hindutva fascists will then call all their critics "taliban", meaning they accuse them of being islamist sympathizers or fellow travelers....and so on.
What Imran Hossein says about mosques and islamic centers is exaggerated but not totally untrue. All muslims (even all "observant muslims") are certainly not terrorists or even terrorist sympathizers, but orthodox Islam (not just some "misunderstanding of Islam") developed in a time of Islamic supremacy and was closely associated with the rise and success of the early Arab-Islamic empire. The laws and theology that evolved were in line with the needs of that imperial religious state. They are harsh about dealing with apostates (by definition, traitors to the cause) and blasphemers and relegate other religions to subservient status or worse (pagans get it bad, Christians and Jews not so much). They are also big on holy war since you cannot have an imperial state without a motivated imperial army. By the standards of the age, I dont think that caliphate (and we are primarily talking of the peak of the Abbassid caliphate as most of the theology and all the legal codes date from that period) was particularly intolerant. In fact, a very good case can be made that they were remarkably tolerant by contemporary standards (remember, this is the time when European Christians were launching massive genocidal campaigns of forced conversion and purification in Eastern Europe and Scandinavia, not to speak of local actions like the genocide of the cathars, which actually happened well after the Abbasids had said good bye). But no current European state idealizes those actions (or laws like the whipping you could get for not going to church on Sunday in Calvinist Geneva), but Islamist discourse ran into some kind of mysterious brick wall 800 years ago (mongols??) and hasnt moved much since then (not in Sunni lands, the shia are actually more flexible). So if you become an observant Muslim, you dont necessarily become a medieval islamic supremacist because even observant muslims dont usually read and closely follow those legal codes, but you do acquire a general idea that orthodox Islamic law (shariah law) is some sort of beautiful ideal (but one you have never actually consulted). Then one day some moron approaches you in the mosque to convince you that you need to start hating the infidels a bit more; you are not convinced, but he gets you the books and lo and behold, they do actually talk of hating infidels, waging holy war and beating recalcitrant wives. At this point, said observant muslim can either silence his inner fanatic and avoid his new found friend in the mosque (a choice that is far more common than Imran Hossein implies: human beings tend to know which side their bread is buttered, even observant muslims tend to know that) OR he or she can gradually become more and more fanatical and some small but non-trivial subset will start to dream of the lesser jihad....welcome to the shoe bomber.

Thank you for the explanation, it is very impressive.