Talk:Muhammad ibn al-Uthaymin

message: I have removed the instances of these Arabic phrases as per consensus that salla Allahu alayhi wa sallam, "SAW", "PBUH" and other such blessings after mentioning Muhammad (including radhi Allahu anhu—or "may Allah be pleased with him"—after the names of sahaba and other venerable Muslims) have no place in a Wikipedia article ... no disrespect is intended by the ommission, but this represents a non-WP:NPOV bias that many non-Muslims find offensive, and it has been the source of frequent revert wars in many articles. — 02:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Peace be upon him (Islam)]] 

message: I do not know why when pictures are added to show the face of scholars like Uthaymeen, Ibn Baz or Albaanee they are quickly deleted!! Or like in this artcicle, they show pictures with no faces.   It is commonly known that Wahabism is against picture taking and I am wondering if Wikipedia should be abiding by Wahabi rules not to show Wahabi scholars pics or just restores pictues that were deleted and or face covered. Chubeat8  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chubeat8 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review the official Wikipedia:Civility policy and the Wikipedia:Assume good faith behavioral guideline.  Throwing out accusations of bias is not the way to help improve articles. MezzoMezzo 06:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suspected POV by article monitors

message: :Image:Saudi arabia.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 18:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Saudi arabia.jpg

message: First of all there is no such thing as wahhabism.
Second pictures are not forbidden by ur so called wahhabis.
No worries i might as well go around erasing everything that offends me on wikipedia, since ur excellency is not
happy with the prophet's titles PBUH
"wahhabi standards" ??? What a biggot u r.
I agree with what the guy says. There is no such thing as wahabism in Islam. This is a new word that many people throw at anyone who they dont agree with in Islam. Also it is not forbidden to take pictures if they are needed to know the person.--74.57.85.149 (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are the biggots supposed to be this interested in Islam ? 

message: I would like to ask all editors to avoid inserting their own personal views into biographies of individuals.  Terms such as "wahhabi" are slurs which should not be used for such an individual; in addition, Salafism is a branch of Sunni Islam, so there is no need to remove the Sunni Islam link from this page.  Lastly, GF Haddad is an extremely partisan member of the Sufism movement; his works are filled with quite a bit of hate material against other Muslims and he should not be cited as a source on subjects for which he displays such prejudice. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent insertions of Sufi POV

message: There is quite a bit of biographical information available on this person in English; why hasn't this article been sourced properly? MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to go ahead and add some sources in addition to removing the peacock terms. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Proper citation

message: For example, the green dome thing was cited by Irfan Alawi, a guy who had been harping for decades about the alleged intention of the Saudi government to destroy the tomb of the Prophet and transfer his body to Baqi cemetery.
This is a slander by Irfan Alawi. The original suggestion was so that the Mosque is to be renovated so that the tomb of the Prophet would be placed outside the structure of the mosque, and not destroyed at all. 
And the alleged document of suggestion wasn't even a suggestion at all, let brother Hasib Noor, a graduate of Madinah University explained it:
"The document he wrote is a paper that post-doctoral candidates in Saudi Arabian universities write in order to reach the level of adjunct professor. Al-Shabal teaches at Imam University. He submitted this paper to the Committee of the Presidency of the Two Masjids in order to establish credibility and at the end of his paper he makes suggestions. He did not submit a proposal to the government; that was never intended—let alone accepted"
https://muslimmatters.org/2014/09/03/of-tombs-madinah-and-manufactured-journalism-the-reality-behind-the-independent-article-on-the-prophets-grave/
In short, no Salafi scholars called for the destruction of the Prophet's tomb; while the Salafi scholars dictated that the building of the Green Dome is impermissible, they also said that if the removal of the Green Dome will cause a fitnah (uproar, havoc), then it should not be done; if it won't cause any uproar, then it should be done, as per the Prophet's instruction to level all graves. 
https://islamqa.info/amp/en/answers/110061
I am really sick and tired of Sufis and Shi'ites slandering Salafi scholars left and right on wiki using gutter opinion pieces from online news platform.
Whenever I tried to correct it and added a legit source (books, written fatwas) , these people quickly removed what I wrote and revert the article back to slander.
2001:D08:2182:202F:DA0D:F297:5F48:CE13 (talk) 13:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is Ibn Uthaymeen and many Salafi scholars were slandered with views that they didn't say 

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) 05:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Why is it that the only view mentioned for these Islamic scholars such as Ibn Uthaymeen is their opinions on women and driving? The man is mentioned as one of the greatest faqihs of the modern era, and the only memorable opinion he had was that women shouldn't drive? This just shows a subconscious bias in the way these people are presented.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Generalissimus Leon (talk • contribs) 01:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: My thoughts exactly! For precisely the reasons you have stated, I have removed this unfairly misleading section and replaced it with a cited section outlining Shaikh Uthaymeen's theory on the four levels of spiritual response to a calamity. Y9ssra (talk) 23:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

text: As it turns out, the source cited in the article for the attribution of him as "one of the greatest faqihs of the modern era" never even said this, so that's removed now. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Views of Ibn Uthaymeen 

message: Hadith 34 nawawi 158.62.77.139 (talk) 10:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hadith