Talk:Osama bin Laden/Archive 14

message: I understand that the current photo is the one used by the FBI, but I think it's lame. The older one was much cooler better.
I think it's rather strange that a photo with the caption "FBI 10 most wanted fugitives" is used. Sure, everyone will be happy when he's caught, but this is an encyclopedia, not the website of the FBI. --82.135.4.88 23:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Photograph

message: This article seems to broadly advocate Islam as a extremist terorist religion. The data and reference are mostly US/UK centric views. Maybe since this is an issue that is sensitive a review board is needed to ensure impartiality of this article, this review board should contain equal members of muslims who are the one insulted in this article and other who have interest in this article. That will be most democratic way to ensure neutrality.
:Please state what items that you feel have been misrepresented. Mister Tog 06:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you read the Quran before making assumptions. Most verses promoting intolerance to unbelievers are clear that the punishment will be in the afterlife. If an unbeliever offers peace then a believer will be punished by Allah if they hurt him. If they offer war then yes...the Quran does instruct believers to kill and enslave them. The Bible and Quran are much the same when it comes to killing unbelievers. If you compare historical Islamic empires with Christian empires (spain is an excellent example) then it is obvious that Islam is much more tolerant. Fundamentalists of both religions are the same, they only see the verses that conform to their own view and misinterpret those that don't. Wayne 07:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality of the article is disputed

message: I don't understand the need to bracket off the claim that OBL was suspected of having something to do with Azzam's death.  It is common speculation among US intel.  Gunaratna gives the claim some credibility, and the claim is reported by Burke, Bergen, Benjamin, and pretty much every book I've read about the topic of al-Qaeda.  I don't understand the claim that it is defamatory.  The article doesnt accuse OBL of the murder; it accurately states that he was suspected of ordering it.  That said, I don't think he ordered it.  OBL was in Saudi Arabia when it occurred.  The murder was very carefully planned, so as not to kill any Pakistanis (in order to avoid close investigation).  Certainly OBL profited immensely from it, however, as it made him the new Islamist leader.  Other possible candidates include the KHAD and Mossad, both of whom had motive, but neither of whom is a likely suspect.  Bergen claims the more likely suspect is an alliance of Zawahiri and Hekmatyar - this claim is certainly credible, and if accurate, it means bin Laden was likely aware of the murder and knew that he would profit from it.  It occurred at a time he was getting closer to Hekmatyar (and when Azzam was promoting Massoud as the future of Islam, while Zawahiri was spreading the claim that Azzam was a bad Muslim).--csloat 07:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Azzam's murder

message: Concerning Osama's "edict", which has been hyperlinked to fatwa: Does anyone know whether Osama or any of the signatories to that edict/fatwa are recognised Muslims clerics authorized under islamic law to issue such editcs/fatwas? If not, then what is written in the intro is neither an edict nor a fatwa, and it is non binding on Muslims. It is merely Osama and his mates stating their political ideaologies, and they should not be elevated and represented as edicts.
If the sources actually states it is a fatwah, then it should be stated that such and such source says a fatwa was issues, but as a side note also mention that those who issued it (Osama et al) are not islamic clerics and under islamic law it is not a fatwa and not legally binding upon muslims. Al-Andalus 05:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is recognized as a fatwa, and called such by all commentators on the issue, but you're right, none of the signatories have any legitimate authority to issue fatwa, and in fact this is usually commented upon as well in most books and articles on the issue.  We should probably have a short section clarifying this; bin Laden uses the form of the fatwa as a rhetorical device, but it is surely not binding in any Islamic legal sense.--csloat 07:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I chose the word edict because it is neutral on the matter of its clerical legitimacy. Although the wikipedia entry doesnt mention its common secondary meaning as an authoritative command, all dictionaries include it  Mrdthree 17:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for all your contributions (that goes to all), -- That Guy 05:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fatwa

message: :i found another funny edit in this article..The fatwa issued by the slamic Commission of Spain..Although not a single islamic country publicly endorsed that fatwa, the wikipedian  article erroneously says "islamic leaders from various countries supports it ". Iam confused ??!! Who are these islamic leaders, since none has done this publicly we only know the words of spanish clerics.does it carry any real weight ? secondly what are those various countries ?? Fox article mentioned only 3 countries.Can we really use he word various here ?? Since the article explicitly  state only  3 countries and most importantly we have no proof that they endorsed the so-called fatwa..So why do we have to use this ambiguous statement in the beginning of osamas article.
thanks
--Iwazaki 16:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is not notable enough to be in the main paragraph. What do you think? yandman 19:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  i think the same.this should not be in the main article, simply because its highly ambiguous..unless someone comes with some proofs to back up this claim,we should remove this part from the article
--Iwazaki 23:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  yandman, i made a couple of changes to it..But still i believe the whole fatwa passage is irrelevant and not necessary to this article..let me know what u think about it.thanks
--Iwazaki 05:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: In the bin. And if you're wondering about the "what he claimed to be a fatwa" sentence, it's because an editor claims he didn't have the authority to issue one. yandman 06:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The horror! The horror! Did you think I was some kind of inbred redneck texan? I don't think anything from Fox is even close to being a reliable source, but that's not the point. Anyway, the problem is that this merits inclusion in the article, but not in the intro. The fact that the islamic council of a country (in which he has never been) "excommunicated" him isn't that notable. We don't go into the different criminal charges against OBL in the intro, so why should we go into this? Intro's have got to stay short. You'll notice the intro doesn't talk about those who support him either. I don't think the article goes into depth either. Have we got an article about pro and anti OBLism? And as for your last comment, I don't agree. I think he's a fervent muslim who truly believes that what he's doing is right and holy. yandman 08:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Dear Al-Andalus, Re-read my comments again.U dont need any reading comprehension skills to fathom that.I do not argue about the importance of the fatwa.I simply think its highly ambiguous(What u wrote) doesnt carry any weight(fatwa it self).Its highly dubious because none of those so-called islamic scholars have endorsed it publicly..Also i really dont know why you have used the word various(both in the article and even here in this discussion) when fox article clearly  states only 3 countries. Your sources merely echoes what these spanish clerics say,and certainly we cant take them for granted.If you can give us better evidence than parroting those spanish clerics, i have no problem having it in this article(if its not in the intro)
--User:iwazaki 11:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  funny 

message: Is his name spelled أسامه or أسامة in Arabic? Both appear on Google, although there are 238 000 results for the ta marbuta ending and 15 000 for the haa ending. Adam Bishop 00:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Was there a difference? Maybe it's my browser... Anyway, I say trust the google-test. yandman 17:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, they are different letters, -at and -ah. From my very limited knowledge of Arabic, -at usually makes a word feminine, but I guess that is not always true. I ask because I thought the other Osama I know of, Usamah ibn Munqidh, ends with -ah, but maybe they are both -at. (It's hard to find an answer since they don't pronounce -at in Arabic.) Adam Bishop 17:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake, I forgot you had to read it backwards. Arabic wikipedia has the first spelling, as far as I can tell, so I'd follow them. yandman 17:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The spelling which ends tah marbuta is correct. LDH 03:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arabic spelling 

message: What new and well sourced data if any at all even really exists has emerged through Wikipedia concerning Osama who (if alive ?) is to turn 50 years old on what is to be March 10th of 2007. Amd what new and fresh data if any has surfaced and emerged on George Walker Bush of who is 61 years old on July 06th of 2007 in his exhaustive hunt on terrorists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Berniethomas68 04:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: UBL is dead. The article should say that he died of typhus last year as the french announced. He is now in paradise with camels and virgins. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.70.32.136 (talk) 10:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I very much hope he is, we don't actually have any proof that he is dead. For data, seeing as how march 10th has passed, I don't know if there actually is any, but I remember seeing a news report that his followers were celebrating his birthday. I could be wrong, but check CNN. JDub90 16:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What new data if any

message: This article uses salon.com as a reference. A concern has been raised about the reliability of salon.com. You can read the following discussion and comment if you like. SeeTalk:Salon.com/as_a_source_for_WikipediaAndries 04:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you take issue with Salon, you MUST take issue with NewsMax.com, which is also cited as a source for this article, specifically the assertion that Bill Clinton admitted on tape that he neglected to take the Sudanese up on their offer to extradite bin Laden to the US. Google isn't quite as reliable as LexisNexis, but googling for that particular topic turns up only NewsMax.com and Sean Hannity bloviating about the NewsMax.com article.  The article itself is about as NPOV as one can get, asserting without any sources or eviddnce that during "secret meetings" with Sudanese officials about bin Laden, he wasn't paying attention because he was busy thinking about Monica Lewinski.  The article then goes on for pages rehashing the Starr report, interspersing quotations from that with unsourced information about more "secret meetings" between CIA, FBI, and Sudanese officials.  The whole thing reads like speculation with no way to prove that any of the events detailed in it ever happened.  I'm going to remove it as a source and add a line to the entry noting that Clinton and his advisors have retracted what he said on that tape unequivically, saying that he misspoke.
18.85.45.139 01:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, didn't realize the page was protected.  Anyway, I believe that what I suggested should be added.  Using NewsMax as a source definitely violates NPOV.  Just read the wikipedia entry and see why.18.85.45.139 01:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Salon.com as a source for this article

message: According to this website..which seems legit http://www.tkb.org/KeyLeader.jsp?memID=6
OSama receives money fro mcharities.....--64.121.1.55 08:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charities? 

message: re: this line in "Education and politicization":
:Osama bin Laden is an expert in Islamic jurisprudence and completed a portion of his Islamic education under the guidance of Musa al-Qarni.[citation needed]
OBL is not an expert in the sense of a trained Islamic jurist. Propose we have something along the lines of this from Messages to the World
:... Nor is bin Laden an outsanding Qur'anic scholar: he lacks command of textual subtleties that mark Wahhabi exegetes in Arabia, or their Azhari counterparts in Cairo. Yet he is a well versed in the classical scriptures and traditions of Islam, and uses them to great advantage ... (p.xvi) 
I don't know how useful this label is:
as there is little doubt bin Laden has business and engineering training. I don't have cites for years of graduation though.   --Leroy65X 23:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with "expert in Islamic jurisprudence" 

message: The cite http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=1082 has been added as source for bin Laden's alleged expertise in Islamic jurisprudence. I just got done reading the interview with Musa al-Qarni cited. It does indeed say that Musa al-Qarni knew bin Laden, and that bin Laden is a good fighter of jihad. It says nothing about bin Laden's knowledge of or training in Islamic jurisprudence. 
Another cite: http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=166 "Former Dean of Islamic Law at Qatar University: Our Culture Is Responsible for Terrorism," 
supposedly has the quote: 
:As an authority on Islam, he has the support of the support of 85% of the population in the Arab region. 
But the interview actually says: 
:... I see this as a policy of having it both ways. When Al-Qa'eda leader did what he did, polls in the Arabs region showed he had the support of 85% of the population.
The cite is not true. I'm going to have to take it out. --Leroy65X 18:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on the "expert in Islamic jurisprudence" 

message: The footnote for  
:In 1974, at the age of 17, bin Laden married his first wife, Najwa Ghanem, his mother's niece, and a first cousin, who was from Syria. The marriage ceremony took place in Najwa's native land, at Latakia, in northwestern Syria. 
...gives this link as a source: http://www.vanityfair.com/commentary/content/articles/051226roco01?page=2 but it's dead. --Leroy65X 18:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: New link found, old one replaced. information confirmed. --Leroy65X 22:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote refers to dead link 

message: The neutrality of this article is disputed. This is as it seems to label the religion of Islam as a terorist teaching. May I sugest you invite people from different background religion, nationality dan race to aprove this article. At least you can try your best to make this article more neutral rather than UK/US centric as it is now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.49.89.75 (talk) 08:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the (inaccurate) line saying "As an authority on Islam, he has the support of the support of 85% of the population in the Arab region,"  has been removed. That should help. --Leroy65X 23:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Not to mention that there's no mention of the dispute over the alleged "confession tapes."  At least there should be a disclaimer under the section "September 11 Attacks" stating that fact.  Do a search and you'll find the comparison images from those 5 tapes don't all show the same person.  One video shows a man who looks about as much like the rest of the known images of Bin Laden as Mel Gibson does.  Don't Panic 23:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV is disputed 

message: Someone should delete the last part of this paragraph.
Obadiaha 18:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision of Children Paragraph

message: It says, with multiple references, that bin Laden has taken the responsibility for the 11 September events. I have read about bin Laden not taking the responsibility, only applauding what happened, but it was a long time ago, and I can't remember any of it now, except that the tape claimed to show the admission was apparently mistranslated. If anyone has any information about this: please bring it forth. Otherwise, I'll look it up later, when I'm in the mood for it. –Hetzer 23:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Responsibility for 11 September 

message: Unless anyone has any objection within the next week, I will be removing internal links to specific dates, which have no relevance to this current article whatsoever. e.g. bin laden was born on [x/y/z] (internal link). --ToyotaPanasonic 12:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  internal links for dates eg. 12th Sept 2006 - proposal for removal 

message: I think it should be mentioned in the "Appearance and manner" that Bin Laden sometimes wears a gold ring on his right hand. Also it should mention that he is left-handed but sometimes writes with his right hand. He is wearing his ring in his December 13, 2001 confession tape, and also writing with his right hand. I'd put it in but the page is locked. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.57.157.81 (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bin Laden's gold ring 

message: Article is categorised in Islamic scholars? Is he Islamic scholar? If so please mention in article and provide citations.--Indianstar 14:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is he Islamic Scholar

message: Failed for: lead does not summarize the article, it is a collection of facts mostly about his terror activities, refs are in inconsistent format, and article has several external jumps to web sites.Rlevse 20:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA failure

message: I heard that the Bin Ladens are managing a company that maintains mosques all over Arabia but I just can find any source of information on it anywhere. Does anyone here have any credible source citations here relating to this issue? --Fantastic4boy 01:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mosques in Saudi Arabia maintained by Bin Ladens

message: Please add the link to the Occitan wiki, as above. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.161.186.205 (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added --Mnemeson 20:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please add oc:Osama bin Laden