Talk:AlMaghrib Institute

message: Please do not vandalise this page by removing the controversy section. All that information can be backed up by useful sources. If you are offended by factual information about how most people feel about the institute, then change the institute not the article. Yeayea2006 10:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Somebody inserted the remark that the institute is "Wahabbi".  There was no citation provided for this nor any discussion of it later in the article.  The institution claims on its own site that it holds no particular ideology and while that may be disputed, the dispute belongs in its own section - not in the opening line of the article. MezzoMezzo 16:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I just had to remove the term "Wahhabi" from the name of the institute again.  This is getting ridiculous, please do not vandalise the articles. MezzoMezzo 18:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I did it again now.  This is vandalism at this point.  To whoever is reading this, please at least provide an explanation before adding things to the description. MezzoMezzo 14:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please stop vandalising this page

message: I think that someone who has the time and the will should consider writing a resourceful contribution that explains why the organization is infamous among Muslims for being a "Wahhabi" organization. First of all, no one runs around saying "We're Wahhabi" and it's anti-intellectual and insulting when an organization such as this claims to "hold no particular ideology." Claiming to hold no particular ideology is the basic framework for what is called "fundamentalism" and what in this case may most appropriately be deemed "Salafi," a term which is used polemically by Non-Salafis, as well as used by many Salafi organizations or persons themselves, albeit not necessarily.
Yasir Qadhi, who in many ways speaks for the organization, is extremely polemic and bashes many Muslim congregations, Shi'a Muslims in particular, directly. I will probably see that this is addressed in his own article. It would be incorrect to say that the Institute is essentially polemic, anti-Shi'a and Salafi simply because Mr. Qadhi is. At the same time, it would be incorrect not to state that there very strongly appears to be a relationship here, that this relationship is perceived, and that it draws the organization a great deal of criticism. Citing some of Qadhi's material should be enough. You can listen to one of his lectures (one among many like this) such as "The Mahdi Series," noting specifically No. 20 of the series. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZrJVF7cE4M&feature=related  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sawyer207 (talk • contribs) 02:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polemics, and a note on the accusations of Wahhabism 

message: AlMaghrib Institute's official spelling is "AlMaghrib Institute", without the hyphen.  This can be attested easily by purusing their site.  Also, the forums has reference for this (currently offline, so I can't find the link...)
Currently, there is a redirect from the correct spelling to the incorrect spelling.  I'm not entirely sure about WP's policy of canoncial article titles, so I'm bringing this up for discussion.  If I find anything new or no responses for a while, I'll probably try and instate the change myself.--Abu Hurayrah 16:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is done.  Cheers, Crimethinker 18:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Institute's name 

message: I really have no answer to what this article is doing on Wikipedia. It was created a couple of weeks ago and written as if it is a personal blog for a person with no notability, by one user who I suspect is the article's subject himself. I think this article should be deleted. Board56 (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: No Credibility

message: 5+2+2+2=11 instructors. What about the other 6?? (it says there are 17, then gives these numbers)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.229.70 (talk) 11:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instructors 

message: I have reverted an edit by User:AlBaraa which removed some referenced info with an edit summary " some of the information altered is incorrect and and the person who changed it removed some references". I'd like to hear an explanation from User:AlBaraa as to what he meant here. The information removed appears to have been adequately sourced. In which way was it incorrect? Nsk92 (talk) 19:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have re-added the CNN ref you were trying to add but I don't see why the other referenced information that was present in the article needs to be removed. Also, please do not remove this discussion thread itself as you did here. Nsk92 (talk) 19:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

text: The article about from Memphis about the other terror suspect doesn't mention anything about him being an AlMaghrib student and the content about Yasir Qadhi isn't relevant to this page, rather is belongs on Qadhi's page.--AlBaraa (talk) 19:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

text: never mind, I reread the article. It's there. --AlBaraa (talk) 19:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

text: The link to the telegraph doesn't go anywhere. It should be removed as a reference.--AlBaraa (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Which "article about from Memphis" do you mean? Please be more specific. The link to the Telegraph article needs to be fixed, not removed - it probably moved to the archive section of their website. I'll look into that. Regarding Qadhi, he is quite a controversial figure himself and this fact has been brought up in relation to the controversies regarding the AlMaghrib Institute, particularly in ref, ref item no. 9 in the article. So this info is relevant to this article as well and not just to to Qadhi article. Nsk92 (talk) 19:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure what happened with the Telegraph ref - I searched their website but could not find it there, even though quite a few other websites quote the Telegraph story. However, there are more recent refs, such as this Washington Post article that mentions Qadhi's Holocaust controversy as well as the AlMaghrib Institute. Perhaps the earlier version did have too much info on Qadhi but I feel that something about him being a controversial figure does need to be mentioned in this article. Nsk92 (talk) 20:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Since you keep removing referenced material without achieving consensus first, I reported the matter at WP:AN/I#AlMaghrib Institute. Nsk92 (talk) 19:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: Unfortunately, much of this article seems to have been taken from the official AlMaghrib website. Whilst, the information might be accurate, it cannot be considered dependable for an encyclopedia. I have therefore removed information that I could not source from reliable third party sources and have expanded on those areas that I was able to find a source.RookTaker (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Is there any reliable information on the sources of funding? If so, I think it would be useful to include.
71.178.139.41 (talk) 04:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Funding sources? 

message: If what you said in your edit summary is relevant, then you should be able to locate a source that specifically links Yasir Qadhi's long-since recanted comments to the stance of the Institute itself. The Washington Post source just says he was quoted as doubting the extent of the Holocaust in 2001, a year before the Institute was founded, and does not specifically say the Institute holds any view on the Holocaust one way or the other. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: He is a key office holder of the Institute. It is relevant. It is properly referenced. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not an appropriate response. Saying "he is a key office holder" does not explain why we should include material in this article about things he said before the AlMaghrib Institute existed. Can you really not see the problem with this? "It is relevant" and "It is properly referenced" are just your opinion; I don't agree with your opinion, and I'd bet most Wikipedians would agree with me. How is it relevant? The only reason it is "properly referenced" now is because, after I removed the obvious OR portion of it along with the rest and you restored the obvious OR portion along with everything else, I removed the obvious OR portion again; the fact that the current wording is properly sourced has nothing to do with whether it belongs in this article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, my friend, but you are using a lot of words to say very little. He identifies himself as a key position-holder within this institute, which hired him with this background. This is relevant. It seems that you just don't like it. It's just my thought; I may be wrong. I'm not trying to be difficult or adversarial. So ok, let's now wait for a third editor to give a view. Let's abide by that. Ok? Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 08:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The above comment is not long, and you have all but admitted that you didn't read it. He obviously didn't self-identify as a key position-holder within this institute in 2001 (or earlier -- he "was quoted" in 2001), so your comment does not prove the material's relevance. Your assumption of bad faith (that I "just don't like it") is not appreciated. But I agree -- we should request a third opinion, so I'm opening an RFC. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

text: Thank you for adding to your earlier comment, but kindly keep your "thoughts" about what my "motivations" might be to yourself. I am following Wikipedia policies and guidelines; I neither "like" nor "dislike" this content (notice how I have not attempted to remove the same material from an article where I feel it is on-topic). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just to be clear. I read your comments. We disagree. Let's wait for other editors' views. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 10:19, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

text: I agree with the "let's wait for other editors' views" point, which is why I have moved your reply to me out of the RFC section, and added it to my summary of your opinion. Sorry if this bothers you, but I've seen a lot of RFCs get derailed by the users who were already involved continuing their discussion in the RFC section before anyone else showed up. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Kindly refrain from demonstrably false accusations. I used your exact words in the summary of our argument, and did not "remove" anyhing you wrote: I moved your reply to me into a section where we were already engaged in bilateral discussion. Are you deliberately trying to sabotage the RFC? Don't you see that the two of us engaging in discussion in the section below is not doing any good? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Now now; calm down. You moved my words because YOU thought they belonged elsewhere. I put them where I wanted them to go. Let's not become adversarial. We can cooperate. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 07:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: But you were the one who escalated the dispute by making a false accusation against me. What gives? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  You did remove it. You then placed it where I did not. Nothing false about my "accusation". Anyway, let's move on. Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 15:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Stance on Holocaust' 

message: Should the "Controversy" section cite Yasir Qadhi's views on the Holocaust which he was quoted on in 2001? 08:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let me reiterate my viewpoint in my own words, thanks. The employment of any scholar with controversial views is relevant in an article on an institution that hires such a person, especially if that person takes a public and important role. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 08:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  The institute. This article is about the institute, and its members have their own articles. If you read the section above, I asked GorgeCustersSabre for a source specifically describing Qadhi's former views on the Holocaust as a controversy associated with the institute (despite his having apparently retracted them before the institution was established), but no such source has been found. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  If such a source can be found add it, otherwise don't. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Iazyges and Hijiri88. As Qadhi retracted his remarks, it seems reaching too far to suggest his previous view is a controversy associated with the later Institute.Parkwells (talk) 12:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

text:  There are other ways to treat this. See my additions to the article. If someone wants to quote the Daily Telegraph in 2010 reporting what Qadhi said in 2001 (this seems to be the only source of this claim), then we are obligated to add what Qadhi was quoted as saying in 2008, in a lengthy recanting of his views and affirmation of the Holocaust, and in 2010, after he and other imams and Jewish leaders jointly visited Dachau and Auschwitz. The imams issued a strong joint statement after that travel.Parkwells (talk) 13:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems the ideal way forward, in my view. Thank you, Parkwells. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Parkwells (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

text: I was also summoned here. After looking at the article, I agree that this information is unnecessary. Louieoddie (talk)
*Leave it out, unless other sources are found. I was brought here by the RfC bot, and thanks to SageRad for breaking out that diff. If this Washington Post article is the only source for Qadhi's holocaust denial, then I don't think that it should be included in the article about the Institute. The diff that SageRed highlights is particularly misleading, because there are no "headlines" about Holocaust denial in evidence, just a brief mention of it in an article where Qadhi is distancing himself from his old views and trying to raise awareness of the Holocaust. I would be open to reexamining if there are other sources on the subject but on the strength of that one, I would be solidly against the inclusion. A Traintalk 17:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC: Should the article mention Qadhi's statements on the Holocaust from 2001? 

message: Breaking this off from the question. I think that the views Qadhi (supposedly) expressed at least a year before the Institute was established are irrelevant to this article, unless sources can be located that specifically associate these views with controversy surrounding the Institute. GorgeCustersSabre believes that this material is relevant because the employment of any scholar with controversial views is relevant in an article on an institution that hires such a person, especially if that person takes a public and important role, and (apparently) that no further sources are required. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let me reiterate my viewpoint in my own words, thanks. The employment of any scholar with controversial views is relevant in an article on an institution that hires such a person, especially if that person takes a public and important role. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 08:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  The institute. This article is about the institute, and its members have their own articles. If you read the section above, I asked GorgeCustersSabre for a source specifically describing Qadhi's former views on the Holocaust as a controversy associated with the institute (despite his having apparently retracted them before the institution was established), but no such source has been found. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  If such a source can be found add it, otherwise don't. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Iazyges and Hijiri88. As Qadhi retracted his remarks, it seems reaching too far to suggest his previous view is a controversy associated with the later Institute.Parkwells (talk) 12:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

text:  There are other ways to treat this. See my additions to the article. If someone wants to quote the Daily Telegraph in 2010 reporting what Qadhi said in 2001 (this seems to be the only source of this claim), then we are obligated to add what Qadhi was quoted as saying in 2008, in a lengthy recanting of his views and affirmation of the Holocaust, and in 2010, after he and other imams and Jewish leaders jointly visited Dachau and Auschwitz. The imams issued a strong joint statement after that travel.Parkwells (talk) 13:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems the ideal way forward, in my view. Thank you, Parkwells. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Parkwells (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

text: I was also summoned here. After looking at the article, I agree that this information is unnecessary. Louieoddie (talk)
*Leave it out, unless other sources are found. I was brought here by the RfC bot, and thanks to SageRad for breaking out that diff. If this Washington Post article is the only source for Qadhi's holocaust denial, then I don't think that it should be included in the article about the Institute. The diff that SageRed highlights is particularly misleading, because there are no "headlines" about Holocaust denial in evidence, just a brief mention of it in an article where Qadhi is distancing himself from his old views and trying to raise awareness of the Holocaust. I would be open to reexamining if there are other sources on the subject but on the strength of that one, I would be solidly against the inclusion. A Traintalk 17:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Threaded discussion 

message: In the "Headquarters" line in the infobox, please change "Milton, Ontario" to Houston, Texas: while we do have an office in Milton, our world headquarters are very much at the Houston office; see here ("United States" has the word "Headquarters" next to it). Thanks, M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 17:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  COI edit request on 5 October 2020