Talk:Muhammad al-Fayadh

message: The link to his official site does not work. Agha Nader 22:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed.  The Behnam 04:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I removed the speedy deletion tag from this article (apologies for the accidental removal of the AFD tag). Stating that the subject is a grand ayatollah is an assertion of notability. It looks like there may be a few decent sources on him as well. I'll check around ScottW 15:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A MEMRI report mentioned that he was the target of an assassination attempt, apparently related to Iraq strife.  When searching for information about him, it is critical to try the variants of his last name, such as al-Fayadh and alfayadh.  I'll add the MEMRI comment to the article.  The Behnam 16:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also found al-Fayad as a spelling. Might not hurt to have some redirects based on the alternate spellings. ScottW 16:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: is the MEMRI source.  It is quoting a London Arabic-language newspaper's report of a defected Iranian intelligence official, Haj Sai'di.  Apparently, he told the Arabic newspaper that the intelligence unit of Iran's Al-Qods Army had plans to assassinate al-Fayadh.  Would it be best to report this as "According to Haj Sai'di, ...", "According to the London-based Arabic-language newspaper al-Sharq al-Awsat, Haj Sai'di said...", or "According to MEMRI, Haj Sai'di said ..."?  
The Behnam 16:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed speedy deletion tag 

message: The articles states, that Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Ishaq Al-Fayyad is "outranked only by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani". The reference provided does not address this statement. I will remove this portion of the article unless it is referenced. By the way, I am pretty sure there won't be a reference that proves this since there is no rank higher than Grand Ayatollah. Agha Nader 20:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try reading the reference in full: "There are three other grand ayatollahs in Iraq: Muhammad Fayyad, an Afghan; Hussein Bashir al-Najafi, from Pakistan; and Muhammad Said al-Hakim, an Iraqi. These three men are all of equal stature. Al-Sistani outranks them all, and the Shiite political factions are increasingly dependent upon him in the role of kingmaker." While it may need to be clarified that it refers to his political clout, you shouldn't that portion of the article, as that would amount to vandalism, considering that it is a sourced statement. Thanks. The Behnam 20:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Ishaq Al-Fayyad is the highest ranking Islamic cleric. He is not involved in politics, and thus cannot be outranked. The quote you use is clearly the view of that source, and it should be noted as such, "According to Wadinet...". Please clarify this statement you make, "you shouldn't that portion of the article, as that would amount to vandalism". From my understanding you are warning me of not committing vandalism by "shouldn't that portion of the article". Please make this statement coherent. I will implement my explained actions if there are no further objections. Thanks! Agha Nader 20:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you apparently could not pick up, the word "remove" should have been placed in between "shouldn't" and "that" in the part of my writing that you are picking on.  I hope this is helpful.  By the way, it is saying that it would be vandalism to remove that portion of the article.  The Behnam 22:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Would there be any objections to changing the wording so that it refers to influence, rather than an official rank? That may be more accurate and more to intent of the source. ScottW 20:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you ScottW for your devotion to Wikipedia. You have been very crucial to the improvement of this article. And I appreciate this greatly. I am also pleased to read your comment; it provides a very interesting alternative. My only objection to this statement would be if it is true. For example, is Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani the only person who outranks him? Doesn't Muqtada al-Sadr outrank  Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Ishaq Al-Fayyad in influence. Also there are some politicians that may outrank him in influence too. Additionally, Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Ishaq Al-Fayyad isn't very influential given the article saying "he has been noted for a "quietist" approach to Iraqi politics, rarely making political statements". Agha Nader 21:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an interesting question. I suppose influence amongst Shias in Iraq (and with most people in most places) is too complex of a topic to boil down to first and second most influential. While al-Sistani is certainly quite influential (perhaps even for the majority of the Iraqi Shia population), amongst certain segments, it seems that al-Sadr is more influential. Maybe it's beyond the scope of this article to figure out influence to that fine of a degree unless a clear consensus can be shown. However, what I do seem to find consistently in various references, is that al-Fayyad is among a select handful of Shia leaders who have a great deal of influence. Be it second or fourth most influential, it probably bears mentioning in the article. ScottW 21:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems, based upon my quote of the source above, that the source is saying that, out of the four Iraqi Grand Ayatollahs, al-Sistani is the most politically influential.  But definitely, the article should reflect that this speaks of political influence, not religious rank.  The Behnam 21:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have not changed this to reflect that he speaks of political influence. Unless you are going to correct the statement, it should be deleted. I don't see anyway the statement can remain given that there is no ranking above Grand Ayatollah in Shia Islam. If you wish to make it "politically outranked" you will confuse the readers. This is because it says in the article that he does not have much political influence. Agha Nader 16:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would make sense for a man who is described as not very politically involved to be outranked politically, so I don't see what would be confusing.  Since you obviously realize that the change should be made, it makes no sense that, rather than making it, you would delete it instead.  This "delete instead of make acknowledged improvement" approach you advocate has made me start doubting your good intentions here.  Since YOU know it should reflect the political stance, YOU could change it yourself.  Maybe I'll do it, maybe someone else will do it first; we'll see.  But please, remember, we are trying to improve the article, not destroy it.  The Behnam 18:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It, indeed, would not make sense for a man that is not politically involved to be outranked politically by Bold textonlyBold text one person. Also, it would improve the article by removing an ambigous statement. I am beginning to doubt your intentions, Behnam. You seem to be adding to the article only yo fatten it up, obviously to help defend him in the AfD. More importantly, as it remains it is unacceptable. Adding the word political, as I have explained and ScottW agreed, would still be unacceptable. Agha Nader 19:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The political comparison is relative to other ayatollahs.  I will change it to simply mention "influence", since that seems to be what ScottW also suggested(though I do not see where he called political "unacceptable").  Your nomination spurred improvement to the article; there is nothing ill-intentioned about improving the article, so I find your accusation rather absurd and baseless, as usual.  Any ambiguity will be removed.  So, I will add "influence", and the "political" need not be an issue.  I hope you will be cooperative, rather than seeking to destroy content when there are viable fixes available.  Thanks!  The Behnam 19:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the last time I will tell you this, Behnam, make personal comments on my User Page. Only post comments that are directly relevant to the article on this page. Agha Nader 19:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the non-response.  Are you OK with "influence"?  The Behnam 19:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please see WP:CIV. I do not like you being rude to me. Also it is against the guidelines of Wikipedia. With regards to "influence", it remains ambiguous. What influence is it referring to? i.e. political, religious or something else. Also, there are plenty of people who have more influence than he does (not just Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani). I propose saying "he has a large following in Iraq". This is true since he is a marja. I will implement the change if there are no objections (sustained by reasons, of course). Agha Nader 20:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You speak of the problem with the "only" part.  However, there is no problem with the statement if you go by the source.  Please note the quote above from that source.  Al-Sistani is placed above the other three, who are considered equal of equal stature.  So, the only one of the four who outranks al-Fayadh is al-Sistani.  It does not imply that he is higher rank than the other two.  Also, please don't make further ill-considered insinuations, such as your remark about me being "keen."  I am simply going by the sources.  Thanks.  The Behnam 22:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Not OR, not an assumption, directly grounded in sources, as previously explained.  Nobody said his ranking was for all religion in Iraq, so the Sunni concern is a non-issue.  The Grand Ayatollahs of Iraq are clearly what is being spoken about both here and in the sources.  So, do not build a straw man regarding the statement.  I already answered your question, and do not feel any need to re-paste either the quote or my argument based on the quote.  You can read them again.  Any "spiritual" mention will also be in the Iraqi Shia context; I am asking you for ways to incorporate this notion properly.  I am not asking you to overlook my previous arguments.  Please read them again, and you will find the answers you seek.  The Behnam 22:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect, you are not practicing good etiquette. Please see [WP:WQT], and read it carefully. It states, "Don't ignore questions." You have ignored this question: "Does  say he is only outranked by Grand Ayatollah Sistani?" twice. It is very disappointing to me. But the ironic thing is that you command me (in your edit summary) to "read before responding", when in fact you ignore my questions. I hope that we can reach common ground on this issue. Please, no IRT EVD. Agha Nader 23:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: My etiquette was fine.  I already answered your question.  So again, do not make ill-considered allegations, and please, read my posts.  The source certainly says that.  Look at the quote I used above: "There are three other grand ayatollahs in Iraq: Muhammad Fayyad, an Afghan; Hussein Bashir al-Najafi, from Pakistan; and Muhammad Said al-Hakim, an Iraqi. These three men are all of equal stature. Al-Sistani outranks them all, and the Shiite political factions are increasingly dependent upon him in the role of kingmaker."  Out of the four ayatollahs, three are "of equal stature", including al-Fayadh.  Al-Sistani "outranks them all".  Thus, out of the four Grand Ayatollahs, the only one that outranks al-Fayadh, according to this source, is al-Sistani.  I already made this argument in response to your question, so please, stop making ill-considered accusations.  And don't give me your little speech about leaving user-oriented remarks to user talk pages.  If you start it here, you finish it here.  I am not going to re-state and re-paste relevant quotes and arguments just because you ignore my answer, and claim I ignore your question.  This is very absurd! Do not ignore my answers.  The Behnam 00:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not like your tone. Please see WP:WQT, it states, "However, don't hesitate to let the other party know that you're not comfortable with their tone in a neutral way -- otherwise they might think you're too dense to understand their "subtlety", and you'll involuntarily encourage them (e.g. 'I know you've been sarcastic above, but I don't think that's helping us resolve the issue. However, I don't think your argument stands because...')." Please correct your tone to a more friendly tone. Isn't that the more appropriate tone for Wikipedians, as this is a community. And by the way, I still stand firm that you are not following WP:WQT. You state "Thus, out of the four Grand Ayatollahs, the only one that outranks al-Fayadh, according to this source, is al-Sistani". This is a prime example of original research. Your analysis should not be necessary; it should be stated explicitly in the source. This is important, because others may interpret the source in a different way. I think you know this though. I have already said that the article says of the four, Grand Ayatollah Sistani outranks them. But it does not say he is the only to do so (there could be other people who outrank Grand Ayatollah Sistani in influence) i.e. al-Sadr. I think you know this though. Why else would you keep ignoring my question? You state "If you start it here, you finish it here" thanks for your motto, but it is not necessary. I prefer to follow Wikipedia guidelines. As for you not continue commenting, I don't care. I have stated my argument, and you have chose to ignore them in part or in full. I plan on implementing the change I proposed if there are no further objections. I propose saying "he has a large following in Iraq". Agha Nader 01:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure if I can make it any clearer for you, as I cannot see how you can misunderstand at this point.  Out of the four grand ayatollahs, he is only outranked by Ayatollah Sistani.  The source isn't talking about al-Sadr, or anybody else; it is talking about the four grand ayatollahs.  By the way, my "analysis" is only an attempt to clarify the source, so again, do not make ill-considered accusations.  You seem to be having a problem with this.  There appears to be a need to clarify the "out of" concept, so I will do so.  But you have consistently  tried to remove information from the article.  You may be able to add your part(if based in a source), but this part under discussion isn't going away.  I don't recommend you remove it, especially in the unilateral way you are planning.  You can pretend all you like that I "ignored" your arguments; it won't make you any more right on this matter.  I hope you improve your behavior.  Thanks!!  The Behnam 04:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you continue your rude tone, then I don't think we can reach common ground. From now on, I will require you to say which sentence of my comment was an ill-considered accusations. As of now, I consider your last comment irrelevant to the subject. This is because it is riden with passive-aggressive rudeness. I propose saying, if there are no further objections, "he has a large following in Iraq". Agha Nader 17:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose that when you say that you will consider a comment "irrelevant", it's your special way of saying that you will ignore another's arguments.  You have done this consistently here, and elsewhere.  I don't know what you think is "passive-aggressive" about my arguments, though it is very rude of you to make such an ill-considered accusation.  Do you know what passive-aggressive means? It usually relates to indirect ways to subvert authority, and as far as I can tell, you are anything but an authority here.  So again, think(and read) before you write.  My previous arguments are still standing since your last comment did not address them; I hope you eventually do stop ignoring arguments and actually try to give a reasoned response.  This behavior adjustment on your part will help us reach common ground.  Thank you.  The Behnam 21:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you continue your rude tone, then I don't think we can reach common ground. From now on, I will require you to say which sentence of my comment was an ill-considered accusations. As of now, I consider your last comment irrelevant to the subject. This is because it is ridden with passive-aggressive rudeness. I propose saying, if there are no further objections, "he has a large following in Iraq". Agha Nader 22:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, Agha Nader does not plan on engaging in constructive discussion.  Until he tries to be more constructive, I don't see any reason to continue re-answering to his provocative statements and accusations.  Hopefully, Agha Nader will drop this obstructionist and antagonistic approach.  The Behnam 23:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I will concede this point. Agha Nader 07:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You really should just improve the statement by changing it to "Islamic law".  See here .  In general, if a statement seems a slightly inaccurate representation of the source, just improve the statement.  Don't remove that portion of the article.  Remember, we are trying to improve the article.  The Behnam 20:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'll elaborate.  I thought that you may have not realized that you could just improve along the lines you suggested instead of simply deleting it.  There was no bad faith assumption; I don't think there was any malicious intent behind your plan to remove the portion.  It just seemed that you knew it was supposed to talk about "Islamic law", so I couldn't figure out why you didn't want to change it.  I apologize if you felt I insinuated any negative statement about your reasons for wanting the removal.  The Behnam 22:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That's my mistake. Thanks for pointing it out. I've corrected the wording to specify Islam, rather than the Koran. ScottW 20:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your speedy correction. Agha Nader 20:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced statements

message: I'm removing the link to alfayadh.org, which is billed as al-Fayyad's official website. The page that I get to from that appears to be a place holder/search portal advertising, among other things, Christian and Jewish Singles, Ringtones, and Alfalfa. I'm open to correction, but I strongly suspect that this is not the Grand Ayatollah's official site. ScottW 22:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: His official website is http://www.alfayadh.net , which is the same as http://www.alfayadh.com .  I had corrected this, but somehow it was undone, as it would be difficult to notice such a small change in a revert.  I'll restore the proper link.  The Behnam 22:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, of course. Thanks for fixing that. ScottW 22:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing link to alfayadh.org 

message: I have been thinking about the question of how the first paragraph should be worded to properly convey the influence of al-Fayyad. My thinking at this point is that it would be better to speak in more general terms in the introduction, and then, if necessary, have a later section that goes into greater detail. With that in mind, here is my proposed text of the first paragraph:
:Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Ishaq al-Fayyad (also Fayad, Fayyadh;  Arabic:  محمد إسحاق الفياض ) (born in 1930) lives in Najaf, Iraq. Born in Gazni, Afghanistan, he is one of only three Grand Ayatollahs in Iraq. As one the four members of marja al-taqlid (or marjaiya)--considered the most prominent group of Shia jurists in IraqReligious Authority in Iraq and the Election, he commands a large following among the Iraqi Shia community. 
As you can see, the text is similar to the current introduction. However, it removes the statement of ranking, and puts more focus on the importance of the marja al-taquid. I think that working in the opening paragraph, we are too constricted to put much more than general statements. Later in the article it would be nice to have a section that dealt with his influence in finer detail. This section could discuss the circles in which al-Fayyad has most influence, his relation to al-Sistani, and other related topics.
There is certainly more to add to the overview section (for example, something along the lines of him being perceived as a relative moderate cleric), but it's probably best to get consensus on how to word his degree of influence before proceeding. Any thoughts or suggestions? ScottW 18:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sort of confused about him being 'one of three grand ayatollahs' and being 'one of four marja al-taqlid'.  I thought that they were the same, and that he was 'one of four' GAs.  Anyway, I don't mind you using that type of wording until there is agreement on his degree of influence.  Since it is a prominent pattern in the sources, I don't think influence should ultimately not be mentioned, but it is understandable to not include it until we work something out.  Your idea about having a separate section for influence-related mentions is good, since quite a few sources comment on that aspect of the man, so greater detail may be needed.  I really don't know what is so non-general about the influence statements, as there isn't much controversy in the sources.  None of them call him more influential than al-Sistani.  Which source is being used for the "large following" part? Also, if you could give your input on what mention of his influence should be included somewhere in the article, that would bring more dimension to the conversation between Nader & I.  The Behnam 21:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested rewording of the opening paragraph 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Ishaq alfaiadh.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Muhammad al-Fayadh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121102113023/http://iraqshia.net/vb/showthread.php?t=42621 to http://iraqshia.net/vb/showthread.php?t=42621
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:24, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion