MezzoMezzo (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 110: | Line 110: | ||
:The reference was already there though a section for references wasn't; I went and added it.<br /> |
:The reference was already there though a section for references wasn't; I went and added it.<br /> |
||
:Furthermore, your edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abd-al-Aziz_ibn_Abd-Allah_ibn_Baaz&diff=146320102&oldid=146319373 here] was blatantly POV and not "exacty what is written in" the given reference. Please review the [[Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point]] behavioral guideline. [[User:MezzoMezzo|MezzoMezzo]] 17:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC) |
:Furthermore, your edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abd-al-Aziz_ibn_Abd-Allah_ibn_Baaz&diff=146320102&oldid=146319373 here] was blatantly POV and not "exacty what is written in" the given reference. Please review the [[Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point]] behavioral guideline. [[User:MezzoMezzo|MezzoMezzo]] 17:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC) |
||
From Chubeat8: Thank MezzoMezzo for your input, the references added on the Oslo accord and Ibn Baaz accespting it were verified and were legitimate. The english source you cited before was improper as you linked the accord to that proof source. However, by adding those references you legitimized stating that Ibn Baaz , and therfore although not in the earlier english source, Ossama logically can be believed to have criticized the Shaikh for that..Thanks and more refernces are always good..Question Mezzo: what is wrong in adding a paragraph that will reveal to the readers his world view -the Shaikh-! I mean what he thinks about the Western culture, the other Muslim schools of thought etc..what is wrong with adding just his views on that, wouldd'nt that make this article more sound! |
Revision as of 01:37, 23 July 2007
Biography B‑class | |||||||
|
Islam: Muslim scholars B‑class | |||||||||||||
|
Saudi Arabia B‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Teacher
The article mentions that one of bin baz's teachers was Shanqiti. This is incorrect. His teachers included Muhammad ibn Ibraheem, al-ateeq, abdurrahman ibn hasan aal Shaikh etc.
hagiography
This article is pure Salafi hagiography, save for Striver's Shi'a-POV edit at the top. It completely fails to put Ibn Baz in any kind of context. There are many Muslims who feel that the kind of Islam he espoused is narrow, rigid, and intolerant, and have no respect for him whatsoever. This should find a place in the article. Zora 21:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree w/ Zora. Many Muslims don't agree with bin baz's fatwas, and not for being too "conservative" or anything like that, but just for ignoring certain evidence and going against the ijma (consensus) of scholars.
An anon editor deleted the above comments and replaced them with:
Shaykh bin baaz is one of the greatest islamic scholars in the past century. He is accepted and respected by the majority of muslims i.e. Ahl sunnah. Allah yarhammu. Those who speak ill of him (the minority of so called muslims) seing as he has passed away only raise his swaab and harm themselves.
- Anon, comments on talk pages are to be left as they are; only the original author can edit them. If you do this again, you could be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Zora 03:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Copyvio 17 July 2005
An anon editor inserted a whole lot of information about bin Baz on 17 July 2005. Unfortunately, it was all lifted verbatim from this site. Per the copyvio policy for existing pages, I reverted to the last non-copyvio version. Just FYI. --Skoosh 03:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
There is already a Ibn Baz article
Actually, this article should be merged with Ibn Baz, which I just found. People are more likely to look for Ibn Baz then they are for the whole dang name. Zora 03:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- Lets standardize this name to Abd-al-Aziz ibn Abd-Allah ibn Baaz. --Striver 17:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- No respons in almost a half year, so ill go ahead. --Striver 07:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Merged
Merged tidied and partly verified. Needs more work. Hijri dates need to be converted. Also mention his support of the dreaded Mutawwa (religious police).--Anjouli 16:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
- Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab needs to be merged into this article. --Striver 15:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
- Why? He is a historical character. Ibn Baaz is a modern character. They are two completely different people.--Anjouli 07:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
- Lol, sorry, messed up, thought they both where bin Baz.... *feeling stupid* :P --Striver 13:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Sun
This is the Ibn Baz article. Topics related to him is to be presented her. You have not a single valid argument for removing that statment. --Striver 14:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Hullo Manojano1
M, I heavily copyedited your contribution, both because there were no references (any cites for the crying episode?)) and because it seemed to be written from a Salafi point of view that is critical of the Saudi government. The wording used implied that the reader SHOULD share your feelings about Salafism, government policies, recent political events, etc. I tried to remove all the assumptions and give a completely neutral description. I may not have succeeded, of course. In particular, I may have "unpacked" your views incorrectly, in assuming that you would describe yourself as a Salafi, that the reformists spoke from that viewpoint, etc. Perhaps you were referring to secularist viewpoints, if there are such in Saudi Arabia? Zora 09:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Not a great beginning
( he was a Muslim scholar and a staunch opponent of Shias and Mut'ah. He legalized the Misyar marriage.) I think this part of the article is extremely misplaced , I really dont think it is the most prominant part of the sheiks life or what he represented . He lived a long and very full life , and beginning the article with such a trivial peice of information is inappropriate !Hhnnrr 16:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- That was placed there by a Shi'a editor who is willing to revert indefatigably in defense of his edits. It was left to avoid a fight. Since the editor involved is now embroiled in a 9/11 controversy, it might be safe to remove that bit which IS intrusive. Zora 19:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- I understand the argument of that this is supposed to be NPOV. However, it is also supposed to be something that is an educational resource where one can derive benefit. If we need to put every POV, regardless of how revelant it is, the worth of the project will be lost. I think that is a small part of his life and should be removed. Since no one has objected, I can do it. ZaydHammoudeh 00:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Scratch above. I did not know it had been changed already. Sorry. ZaydHammoudeh 00:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
would someone mind doing that , i have an open proxy Hhnnrr 13:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
2.6 Death
Dont you think that this section sounds too baised? Difference of opinion is one thing but entry in section 2.6 is just leading, provocative and just too sarcastic to be a part of any encyclopedia. I suggest it should be re-written with dignity showing the respect which should be offered to a scholar no matter which school of thought he belonged too. Saqibsohail 07:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Flat earth allegations
Does anyone have an independent authority on the meaning of his infamous "flat earth" fatwa? He claimed that he did not say that the earth was flat, and that he didn't even declare those who affirm its rotation to be unbelievers, although he holds that position to be false. He claimed that he just declared any who say that the sun does not revolve around the earth to be unbelievers (the motion of the sun around the earth in a "course" being "[in collision] with the clarity of the Noble Qur’an and the pure authentic Sunnah which both prove that the sun and the moon both run on a course")
- If you look on Muslim flat earth theories you will find more on this topic, apparently there was never a fatwa on the issue, just a misunderstood interview. But the letter on the website referenced appears to be from the Mufti. So he's not a flat-earther, just a geocentrist. That puts him in agreement with the Medieval Catholics... --Slashme 12:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Disputed
Dates of birth and death
Could someone check the conversion from islamic calendar to the Gregorian calendar. One source lists his date of death as May 13, rather than May 12. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Major edits recently
I noticed that a long series of large edits to the article were done recently. For the most part they look good and surprisingly balanced but they also seem to lack sources almost entirely. I will get to working on fixing that soon but in the future please come to the talk page first with any major edits or restructuring. MezzoMezzo 21:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
rev of flat earth, gulf war and ObL sections
62.150.9.30 deleted every issue remotely controversial or of interest to the uninformed reader from the article. I have replaced them. --Leroy65X 23:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Good job, that completely slid past me. MezzoMezzo 04:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Recent addition of fatawa
Recently, an edit with some strong POV overtones was added in the form of some fatwas from this person. While much of the material does seem legit, is was presented in a very biased manner; Wahhabi, for example, is a very contentious term in most instances especially considering the guy never called himself that. In addition, this is not Wikiquote; refer to the Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles guidelines as far as avoiding a quotefarm. Bin Baz made many Fatwas, and it would make a mess of the article to list them all here. This, coupled with the fact that the ones provided are not necessarily any more relevant than any other he has made makes it a bit silly to keep a separate section for them, especially considering that the current consensus version of the controversy section is already apt.
Also, please do not simply rewrite or insert entirely new sections without gaining the approval of other editors first; review the official Wikipedia:Consensus for more information on that. For the time being, I am considering the issue closed. MezzoMezzo 02:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Fine MezzoMezzo, take a look at the sources and make sure to do the correction you see fit. From His Fatwas is an important part that characterized the uniqueness of this scholar..However modifications will be made, still his idea must be shown to the public. So go ahead with your corrections and we will go ahead with making sure his ideas rom his official website are exposed to the public..no sir, the issue is just openning..thanks
- His official website is already under the external links section, along with a number of other sites about his life and his views. That is sufficient; if you would like to add a section underneath the external links, then that is fine. Regardless, you have failed to explain why turning the article into a quote farm would enhance it or why posting some specific fatwa (among the hundreds he made during his lifetime) is necessary for the article, especially considering his ideas are already shown just fine. The current version of the article was put together by a number of editors here over a long period of time and with some serious teamwork; one anonymous user coming along and deciding he wants to change it doesn't suddenly open some sort of an issue, please review the official Wikipedia:Consensus policy. Also, the fact that you falsely accused me of violating Wikipedia policy and refused to even discuss the issue up until you recently hit your Wikipedia:Three-revert rule limit doesn't do much to help your credibility. Unless you can reasonably explain why this new addition beyond what is already here is important, then the issue is closed. Thank you. MezzoMezzo 03:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks MezzoMezzo, I have no problem understanding your point, nevertheless, I offer my respect to the way you (and the collectivity) see this article should be. I understand that should the controvertial Fatawa be addressed at Wikipedia, then my be a hole new article should be created sepqaratly and a link should be offered at the bottom of Bin Baaz article like you stated. Now I renew my thanks to you again..take care! PS, in the Fatawa article, you will be invited to edit without restriction and show you arguments freely..good day to you!
- I never stated to create a separate article nor did I say to put any sort of a link at the bottom of this one, so please do not accuse me of saying things that I clearly did not. All my responses may be seen above. In addition, a separate article is not necessary as there is not a sufficient amount of controversy outside the links you and some other anonymous users provided on this and the article on Albani. My response in regard to this supposed separate article can be seen here. It has already been nominated for speedy deletion as it should be. Please stop disrupting Wikipedia to make a point as this may teeter dangerously close to violating the official Wikipedia:Vandalism policy. MezzoMezzo 19:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
-- thanks Mezzo, but I think over time, your credibility somehow is going to be questioned and your main article disputed. See in the Ibn Baaz official homepage! the Aarabic page they call for Jihad and the English page they call for peace and love. Wikipedia is where thinks get to be known. All Arabic contents -ligit- will be placed about your scholar. Just a matter of time doing the translation. As for the new article, it is by and large based on way more references than your main article. All the references are verified ligit. We even offered you videos, what else do you need!
- I see what you're doing a mile away, so there's no need to be coy. While you are subtle, your comments are teetering around the official Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy:
- I made a comment about your credibility because you falsely accused me of violating Wikipedia policy here. Throwing around things like that isn't very professional or responsible. You, however, seem to simply be making a personal remark to "get back" at me as you have not indicated why my credibility would be in question.
- It is not "my" main article, it is Wikipedia's and has been worked on by a number of editors. This is not some sort of personal "me vs. you" or "my guy vs. your guy" thing, so please do not make it into that.
- Jihad is a subject within Islam and has many different uses. I can see that your subtle suggestion is that Bin Baz speaks about peace and love to non-Muslims and holy war to Muslims, but that simply isn't the case and to suggest the dude is that two-faced is very unfair and dishonest.
- All Arabic contents of his site will not be placed on the article because his entire site is not relevant to his biography - a telling of who, what, where, why, and how. Also, please review the official Wikipedia:Copyrights policy and the Wikipedia:Guide to layout page in the manual of style; also keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a quote farm nor is it a place to simply copy and paste every last detail about a person. Articles should be short and succint.
- He is not "my" scholar. Again, avoid turning this into a me vs. you thing and please, please review the official Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy. This is getting to be silly.
- Most of the references you have provided are not legit for two very important reasons. First, almost all of the material that you have provided is not in English. Because this is English Wikipedia, these links to not cut it for the official Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Secondly, sites like albrhan.org are Hate sites and while they may be acceptable as information on an opposing point of view, they are not legitimate at all as a fair showcase of the opinions of a person whom they openly declare to be a heretic.
- I think that you need to take a step back before replying to this, as you seem to be getting heated to the point of being passive-aggressive toward me. This is not a personal conflict. In addition, you should review the language that you are using; you are not the final arbiter of what shall or shall not be included in an article; for the umpteenth time, I am asking you to view the official Wikipedia:Consensus policy. MezzoMezzo 01:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Bin Baaz did not endorse the Oslo Peace Accord. Bin Laden criticized him for being a pupet of his government. Very suspicious insertion. We ask that this section to be deleted or an insertion of Ibn Baaz fatwa endorsing peace with Israel.
- The reference was already there though a section for references wasn't; I went and added it.
- Furthermore, your edit here was blatantly POV and not "exacty what is written in" the given reference. Please review the Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point behavioral guideline. MezzoMezzo 17:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
From Chubeat8: Thank MezzoMezzo for your input, the references added on the Oslo accord and Ibn Baaz accespting it were verified and were legitimate. The english source you cited before was improper as you linked the accord to that proof source. However, by adding those references you legitimized stating that Ibn Baaz , and therfore although not in the earlier english source, Ossama logically can be believed to have criticized the Shaikh for that..Thanks and more refernces are always good..Question Mezzo: what is wrong in adding a paragraph that will reveal to the readers his world view -the Shaikh-! I mean what he thinks about the Western culture, the other Muslim schools of thought etc..what is wrong with adding just his views on that, wouldd'nt that make this article more sound!