Talk:Abdul-Rahman Al-Sudais/Archive 1

message: I have found this article too biased against the Imam. He is one of the most widely respected scholars in the Muslim world. Whoever wrote the current version clearly does not want to know the other side of the story. Anyway, according to Wiki's standards, this article is supposed to be neutral. It seems to be far from neutral.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 221.134.249.115 (talk • contribs).
:While I see no reason why this article is biased, I do agree that it is in need of expansion (this is why it is marked as a stub now) to present his credentials in full. Everyone will see then that the words like "Monkeys and pigs and worshippers of false Gods who are the Jews and the Zionists." come from an influential scholar, highly respected in the Muslim world, rather than  from a marginal, universally despised bigot. Pecher Talk 16:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is too biased 

message: I do not think that this article is now too biased or unsourced (at least compared with the rest of Wikipedia) and I therefore removed the ugly boxes with hands. Regarding the claim that His Eminence memorised the whole book at the age of 12, I removed it until somebody finds sources for it; I do not believe that this is a fact of key importance. - Regarding the title of the 2nd chapter: I think that "controversial" is too weak, and moreover there is nothing very controversial about it - it is simply a textbook example of hate speech.--Ioannes Pragensis 07:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New edits - 22 June 06 

message: Well I think you shouldn't have removed the word 'controversial' and replaced it with 'hate'. This has made the article biased once again. The Sheikh's sermons may be considered as hate only by some Jews and Christians. What about the Muslims?
And please remember, the Sheikh was referring to the oppressive Jews of the state of Israel, who have illegally occupied Palestinian lands. There is no dispute about the fact that their continued occupation is illegal under international law. Also, when referring to Christian and Hindu people, he was just reffering to their own practices of what amounts to worshipping 'false gods'in Islamic terms. To be neutral, you have to consider the viewpoint of Muslims as well. The Sheikh is among the most highly-respected scholars of Islam and certainly not a bigot.  221.134.248.125 16:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear anonymous colleague, Wikipedia is not to be written from Muslim (or any other particular) point of view. Instead we are trying to achieve a neutral point of wiew (WP:NPOV). If somebody says about a group of people thet they are "monkeys and pigs who should be annihilated", then it is a hate speech and nothing else. And the gentleman is speaking not only about Zionists, as you assert, but about "the Jews and the Zionists" - "the Jews" are much broader category, including many people who are against the occupation. So I think I am not biased, but only give things their proper names. Greetings --Ioannes Pragensis 18:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why 'hate'? 

message: As you can see, the entire point of the article seems to be attacking the Imam, not telling his real job: to be reciting the Quran (I don't care about bias against the Quran, believe or disbelieve). Muslims should recite the Quran in nice and beautiful tones. Imam Sudais does an awesome job of doing that yet no one has written anything much on that. As for the "sermons attacking Jews and Christians," that I believe is full of bias. People keep removing "promotion websites' so that no one hears what he really does for a living. If Imam Sudais really did say the hate speech I disagree with him then. But let's focus on his real job, shouldn't we? --Nhgulam 15:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, then focus on his real job, write how he changed the Quran recitation, which type of tones he prefers etc.; but do not remove other relevant information here.--Ioannes Pragensis 20:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I apologize for removing that relevant information. I am new here anyways. --Nhgulam 15:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, does not matter, we can revert it easily. Happy editing! (And, by the way, use please your signature here on discussion pages - the third button from right, produces four tildas.)--Ioannes Pragensis 07:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: An entire section of the article was based on nothing but second hand gossip, under the guise of being from a reliable source, the BBC. I've deleted it per WP:Biographies of living persons. -- Kendrick7talk 06:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may call it a "gossip", but the source is nevertheless reliable. Beit Or 07:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased section 

message: This man is one of the foremost scholars in the world at this time in Islam. This man deserves respect. although it is understandable if someone does not agree with with his choice of faith, it is completely unacceptable for people to input false information just because of prejudice against Islam, and whoever's doing it knows who they are. Unless someone has verified information, with a RELIABLE external link, then it would be geratly appreciated if you DO NOTHING to vandalise this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ericwong (talk • contribs) 17:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly do you think does not come from reliable sources? Beit Or 17:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would rather say that you, Ericwong, destroy the quality of the article by deleting sourced information and by adding weasel words and unverified claims. I assure you for my person that I have no prejudices against Islam, I have rather sympathies for good and peaceful believers of all faiths. So stop please personal attacks and read the fundamental guidelines of Wikipedia you've got from me today.--Ioannes Pragensis 19:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop making stuff up 

message: Please gentlemen, do not start edit wars here. Try to speak quietly, hear each other, do not make bold changes in the article against  consensus of other editors. Thank you,--Ioannes Pragensis 22:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war? 

message: Please refrain from deleting material that is well and reliably sourced, as well as relevant, without a discussion here. Removing material simply because one feels that it paints a person in too good or too bad of a light is improper, and a seeming violation of WP:NPOV. Pleae remember that Nuetral point-of-view does not mean that the article can say neither good nor bad about the subject. Rather, that (emphasis added is my own) “All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias.” If the reliable literature predominantly paints a person, object, or idea in one light, that light must be the dominant theme in the article, in accordance with the "proportionate" clause. Whitewashing or vilifying (as the case may be) an article to achieve a "neutral" tone is both an improper representation as well as a violation of WP:NPOV and would need to be reverted as vandalism. All editors do need to review the appropriate policies before editing articles which may have contoversy surounding them. Thank you. -- Avi 13:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: hten why limit ourselves to jsut this sermon. I can finf many many other sermons as well. Why not quote them all? You've not shown any reliable source that suggests that this particular sermon is more notable than other ones.Bless sins 14:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Then perhaps we should quote the entire sermon. It is unfair to take man's views out of context. Who are you and I to say that other parts of the same sermon are not as important as this part?Bless sins 14:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you find anything in any other part of the sermon that would in any way shape or form mitigate the antisemitism? Please quote it here. -- Avi 14:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, basically you want the inclsuion of material as long as Sudais is portrayed to be anti-semitic. But as soon as anything doesn't portray him bieng anti-semitic, you are opposed to its inclusion in the article. This is clear violation of WP:BLP, not to mention WP:NPOV.Bless sins 18:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:SOAPBOX#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox.Bless sins 19:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Where did you get that from? If you can find some equally reliable sources that say this man is not anti-Semitic, they belong in this article as well. If you cannot find such sources, that is not a reason to delete the sources that say he is. Unless I misunderstood you? -- Avi 05:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I said "Then perhaps we should quote the entire sermon", to whic you responded "Can you find anything in any other part of the sermon that would in any way shape or form mitigate the antisemitism? Please quote it here." WHy are you only after material that "mitigates" antisemitism? Can a man not say anything else besides antisemtism? Why not include parts of his sermon thet are not alleged (by you) to be antisemitic?Bless sins 05:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the section is titled "Statements vilifying Jews and other non-muslims". If you wish to create a new section titled "Speeches" that is a different story. -- Avi 05:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. So we can quote loads of his sermons in a section called "speeches"? In any case which of your sources actually uses the word "vilify"?Bless sins 05:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a completely wrong interpretation of WP:BLP, If your reading of the policy were correct, then any negative material would have to be attributed to sources. That is at odds with common sense and the generally established practice. Beit Or 20:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: THis is what WP:BLP says. I'm not making anything up, you can check out BLP for yourself. In anycase, your edits are very hypcritical in the light of articles like Martin Gilbert where you have removed all criticism, regardless of attribution.Bless sins 20:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not disputing the correctness of the quote from WP:BLP, just poiting out that your intepretation is nonsensical. Al-Sudais' statements on non-Muslims are not "criticism", but facts drawn from multiple, independent, reliable sources. Beit Or 21:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Allegations of anti-semitism are definetly criticism. Infact, his statements on non-Muslims are disputed. But again I would like to draw attention to your double standards on this article and Martin Gilbert and Bat Ye'or where you have been silencing criticism.Bless sins 21:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, documenting his speech is not "criticism", just reporting. Beit Or 21:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but those "reports" are disputed by other media outlets who claim that his words are misrepresented. Clearly the "documenting his speech" is an allegation in an attempt to make Sudais look bad.Bless sins 21:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disputed, not a valid dispute. 9-11 is also "disputed." Why should anyone take these disputes seriously? What makes them scholarly enough to be ligitimate disputes?--Sefringle 04:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 9/11 was reported by hundreds of media sources. No serious sources dispute its occurence. This is a bit different. This is disputed by the Muslim Council of Britain, a pretty netural organisation with no political ties with any group. Its general secretary was even knighted by the Queen of the United Kingdom. Thus if it disptues something, it is assuredly a serious dispute.Bless sins 05:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that all? It seems like they are the only ones accusing BBC of being liars. Even some muslim sources have admitted he said this. Sounds like undue weight.--Sefringle 06:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Muslim Council of Britain is so neutral that it boycotts the Holocaust Memorial Day in the UK. Beit Or 19:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm no. The link you point to suggests that some politicians accuse MCB of boycotting Holocaust Memorial Day, while MCB itself denies this. The MCB is infact is calling for the remembrance of all persecuted nations ("Genocide Day"). Nothing non-neutral about remembering everyone regardless of ethnicity.Bless sins 03:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "The MCB policy of refusing to send representatives is widely perceived as a boycott, and has been condemned by a variety of British public figures and organizations..." Beit Or 05:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only people that condmen it are some politicians and activist groups. Then again it quite natural for politicians and activists to condemn others, it's almost like what they do.Bless sins 14:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting sourced and cited material 

message: Why is this so-called "scholar" portrayed as a becon and a role-model for all Muslims? He is loved only by Wahhabis and some Salafis, meaning that the vast majority of Sunni Muslims and Shia Muslims don't like this man. Armyrifle 13:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This, along with a lost of other stuff, is in the article because this is the perspective of some wikipedian.Bless sins 16:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have reliable sources documenting this man's mariginalism in Islamic society, by all means add it. If you have reliable sources documenting this man's importance in Isalmic society, by all means add it too. But please do not remove informatin because the current existing facts lead to uncomfortability. I agree, this article needs sxpansion; I'm sure there are many more things that can be added such as history, birth, family, etc. That is why it is rated start and not B; we need more; help us out. Thanks! -- Avi 18:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interestingly enough, at the top of this talk page, an anon said about al-Sudais: "He is one of the most widely respected scholars in the Muslim world." Beit Or 18:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said claims here are based upon OR.Bless sins 03:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is this so-called "scholar"...

message: Can someone please source the statements about Sudais's renditions of the Qur'an? It's been tagged since February. Thank you. -- Avi 04:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Career section 

message: there is no reason for an archive right now. I've seen longer talk pages.Bless sins 04:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know; but in my experience, people don't tend to read longer talk pages. -- Avi 04:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want, you can archive everything above (but not including) "Neutrality". BTW, please respond there as I've raised a point about BBC's accuracy.Bless sins 05:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archives

message: I do not think that the title "Antisemitism and racism" is well chosen. I do not see why Sudais should be described as a racist. He does not slander races, but religions and nations - e.g. not white persons but Christians, not Semites but Jews. It is indeed possible that there is a bit of racism in it, but not clearly visible, at least as far as I know - WP:V :-) --Ioannes Pragensis 08:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. The previous title included vilification (which I felt was a more provocative term) of other people besides Jews, so I thought there should be another term besides "antisemitism", but you are likely correct that "racism" is the wrong term. Do you have an alternative, perhaps? -- Avi 12:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry but I dont. For the time being, I renamed it to the "Controversial sermons" but I am not sure what title should be used.--Ioannes Pragensis 13:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: There is blatant antisemitism and anti-hinduism in the sermons, but where is there racism per se. His demarcation seems to be religious and not racial. -- Avi 00:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antisemitism and racism 

message: Since user:Bless sins seems to be perturbed about the length of the quotes sections, yet removing the quotes in toto is inappropriate for verification purposes, I have restored the pertinent quotes into the footnotes of the citations. The article text is now, hopefully, smooth prose and paraphrase, with pertinent quotations down below. This way, the text is not overlong and choppy, yet the information is immediately available. I also fixed a few improper links and updated citation templates. -- Avi 15:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote restoration to footnotes 

message: Can anyone help to flesh this part of Sudais's life out? -- Avi 20:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family, wife, children, etc. 

message: Please leave the vertical formats. The article text does not appear different, and the citations in the code are easier to verify. -- Avi 19:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is also harder to edit, since it is harder to tell where the text and references starts and stops --Sefringle 19:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vertical format for cite templates 

message: Can you explain what you mean by "Non-reliable source "Citizen Jounalism". This is does not seem to be even an established organization; more like a blog"?Bless sins 14:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence is in English, and the grammatical structure seems sound. I am unsure as to what is troubling you about the meaning inherent in the sentence, unless, perhaps, you are not a native or fluent speaker of the English language? -- Avi 14:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you explain how Ohmy News in a "Non-reliable source"? Why do you think it is a blog? Finally why did you remove the remark about Sudais' comments being "overblown" by media? Oh, stop attacking my language.Bless sins 14:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh My news engages in "citizen journalism," it is not a reliable, eben ostensibly, unbiased news site, but a place where people post their take on journalism. It is more similar to a blog than CNN/NBC/Fox/Al Jazeera/etc. -- Avi 14:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-reliable source

message: Not sure when Sudais called for the annihilation of Jews as claimed in the lead of the article.
Please provide the quote. Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 00:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Source brought. -- Avi (talk) 07:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Daily Telegraph and Charles Moore are reliable and verifiable sources. Unless you are calling both of them liars, in which case, we need to remove all references ever sourced to the newspaper. The piece is quoting Sudais, and as a secondary source, is eminently acceptable. Monkeys and pigs is also sourced to the Panorama transcript. -- Avi (talk) 13:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Part of what makes this man notable in the English-speaking world is his comparison of Jews to monkeys and pigs, and his calls for them to be destroyed. The lead is the proper place for something of this magnitude. Furthermore, the Moore's opinions in the piece is not being used to support the claim, Moore's QUOTE of Sudais is being used to support the claim. We do not need the source for Moore's quote, as the Daily Telegraph is a reliable source, and we are using it as a secondary source which is actually preferable. Again, we are not using Moore's OPINIONS about Sudais; those would have to be attributed to Moore. But the quote is Sudais's, and is appropriate, both in terms of sourcing and in terms of placement. -- Avi (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

text: No, you are mistaken. He did not say it was an OPINION that Sudais said what he said; he is QUOTING Sudais, and then proceeds to give his opinion ABOUT what Sudais said. The difference is crystal clear. -- Avi (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Because it is one of the key elements that makes this man notable with respect to the English Wikipedia. -- Avi (talk) 02:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Annihilation of Jews

message: No fact about the part where he led many prayers in Mecca?
Only the highest scholars led prayers in Mecca.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooolway (talk • contribs) 05:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What??? 

message: It appears that section entitled "Controversial statements on non-Muslims" has been erroneously duplicated in this article, i.e. it's posted twice. I would be more than willing to delete it but it appears that new users are not allowed that privilege for this article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.23.93 (talk) 20:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erase Duplicate 

message: Unless there exist sources that support claim that the quotes the article brings from Sudais in and of themselves were restricted to Zionists and not Jews, the qualifications being added are clear violations of Wikipedia principles of verifiable information, neutral point of view, etc. Further violations may need to be met with measures taken to protect the project. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding good sources is always helpful. Most of the added sources were reliable, and I have "templatized" them. There are a few, however, which were not. For one I found a substitute; the others I have tagged. Hopefully, we can either show that the sites are subject to editorial oversight and are reliable, or find substitutes. -- Avi (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced and unsupported qualifications about Sudais's statements on Jews 

message: The article claims 'Al-Sudais called the Jews "monkeys and pigs"' and the following text is given with ref #20:
"...He turned some of them to monkeys and pigs and worshippers of creatures..."
Clearly he is not calling all the Jews "monkeys and pigs", rather he is claiming that Allah turned some of the Jews, in the past, into monkeys and pigs. And in fact this is mentioned in the Quran. So, as the source mentions, the claim is made by the Quran and only repeated by Al-Sudais. Please see following source for the references in the Quran:
A classical explanation of Quran: http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=366&Itemid=36
Christian viewpoint on this topic: http://answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/jew_apes.htm
-- Chintook (talk) 02:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have also noticed this from reading the quote, I guess this is simply another instance of misunderstanding the context and the words not coming across as the originally intended meaning from translation? This ayah is clearly very specific and I don't believe it is speaking generally about all of the Ahlul Kitab, only the specific group mentioned wa Allahu alim. Sakimonk  talk 03:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Al-Sudais call the Jews "monkeys and pigs"? 

message: Substituted at 14:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment