Talk:Al-Albani

message: why is this article blocked by copyright?
I edited the part where it says he was expelled from saudi arabia, that's not true, he was never expelled from saudi arabia, and mater of fact all saudi arabian scholars respect him and credit him as one of the greatest scholars, including shiekh abdul aziz ibn baz
While not expelled from Saudi Arabia, al-Albaani was removed from his teaching position at the Islamic University of Madinah. His biographer, Muhammad Ibrahim Shaibaani, states that this was due to false accusations made against him by jealous professors. He then mentions Ibn Baaz's words of consolation upon his removal. This is found in the book, Hayaah al-Albaani; vol. 1, pg. 60-1, which I am surprised to not see cited as a reference here as it could considered the authoritative biography even if only quantitatively as it is two volumes. I mentioned this as  the primary source for this article is from the intro to a translated book. Supertouch (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright?

message: This seems to be the start of a good article as it has a good deal of information. Here are the reasons for marking this for cleanup:
* It has some point-of-view problems: "After Albania was taken over by atheism" and "he bore this with patient perserverence" are examples.
* No sources are cited.  Is this original research?  I can't determine what this person is notable for, and cannot figure out how to categorize it.  This needs a subject-matter expert to evaluate and improve.
* The article needs to be wikified.
Not trying to come down hard on this article, but somehow I succeeded.  Cleduc 3 July 2005 02:29 (UTC)
This article is not neutral by any stretch of imagination. It is written from a Salafi standpoint by obvious supporters of Al-Albani.
Who alleges Rashid Rida (who has his own page on wikipedia despite the lack of a hyperlink) is a freemason?
Actually, this article was written by a "Salafi" scholar, and is reproduced at the beginning of Albani's book, Sifat as-Salat an-Nabi. This article may be infringing on copyright
Hey I have read a lot on this guys life and I'am Albanian from Kosova and can fix some of the wronge things I will try and clean up what I know INSHALLAH waht I dont I will leave for people that do
I have removed the criticism section of this page because it was not neautral and there were many answers given to Albani's research without authentic references.
Furqan  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Furqan81 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: This article has too many double vowels, which is unnatural in English print. I recommend using the IJMES (International Journal of Middle East Studies) standard http://www.georgetown.edu/departments/history/faculty/journals.html
This is simply to represent the long vowels common in Arabic. While it is at variance with the standard manner of transliteration it is much more practical as the symbols used are difficult to use and not recognized by any but a few. The Atlantic Monthly has an interesting aarticle not too long ago discussing the different ways of transliterating Arabic to English lettering which seemed to express some amount of frustration at the inevitable inconsistencies present in doing so. Supertouch (talk) 14:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need for transcription standards 

message: everyone calls him "al Albanee". --Striver 12:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  rename 

message: "some sufis" ???
IT seems like some people trying to promote a certain point of view are not willing to allow much in the criticism section. how sad.
:While the term "some Sufis" does seem like a jab, the overwhelming majority of his critics are practicioners of Sufism.  Also, please log in when making edits. MezzoMezzo 13:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  weasel words 

message: ATTN: User: MezzoMezzo
You have rightly stated :"as much of this material is in Arabic or French and thus unreadable by most users of English-language Wikipedia." I support what was quotted and see some problems with the following references in this article:
1.^ ad-Dustoor, 10 August 1999 (unreadable and -or accessible to English readers)
2. ^ a b al-Asalaah, Issue #23, Pg. 76-77 (unreadable or-and  accessible to English readers)
5. Tanaqadat al-Albani al-Wadihat and Vol.2, pp. 63-64 (unreadable or-and  accessible to English readers)
Having said that, this article remains based on 2 or 3 references !!and needs fortifications in terms of references: legit English readable-accessible or verifiable sources are necessary. User: Swapant
:Really this could have been brought to the attention of any editors reading the talk page, but regardless I am flattered by the attention.  :)  The three articles are from non-English publications, but are all available on the web - translated into English, of course.  I'm editing some other things and am trying to get out the door in just a few minutes, but I respect your dedication and will try to find the translations for you later on tonight. MezzoMezzo 21:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improper referencing!! 

message: I have changed 'some sufis' to some muslims. Although some may be 'practicioners of sufism', they are still a subset of muslims, and criticism has been put forward by non-sufis as well. To call the 'sufis' is misleading - almost like saying 'some salafis believe that Al-Albani is a qualified scholar'. AN-MEL 10:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Sufis? 

message: I don't claim to be an expert on Nasiruddin al-Albani, but what I do know is that he is more controversial than this article seems to indicate. In many instances he contradicts all four of the Islamic Schools of Jurispudence. Many scholars throughout the Islamic World regard his actions such as editing or as he calls it (mukhtasar) of classical books such as Bukhari highly controversial. I am not going to take sides but al-Albani is, as the article states, considered by "various scholars as being perhaps the greatest Islamic scholar of the twentieth century". The various however is a minority, and is thus not worthy of an entire section of praise, followed by a "Refutation of Criticism" section. I thought there had to be a "Criticism" section for there to be a "Refutation of Criticism" section. Please re-check this article. Jaw101ie (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He has his critics, however I was never aware of any sort of large controversy or of this "various" in question being a minority compared to them (critics).  There is some out there on the net, but so far all I have found is polemical works from sites of different sects.  What we could do, if you think this will help, is remove the unsourced content in the "refutation" section, as indeed it doesn't make much sense without there being reliable criticism.  The sourced thing in that section doesn't really seem to be a refutation at all so much as it is an academic view.  So I think we could move the sourced part up to the previous section and just drop the "refutation" section entirely.  That's just the most immediate thing that came to my mind. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Please don't take this as a reason to stop editing, as this is more of an article policy discussion than anything else.  I'll enact the suggested edits but do keep in mind that people who are enthusiastic to help edit articles should never feel shy to do so. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: A number of recent additions have been slipped in regarding a debate Albani had with a man by the name of Al-Buti.  There are a number of problems that have ensued with these additions up until now.  The first and most obvious issue was the usage of marifah.net as a reference; it is quite obvious even to a casual observer that marifah is a highly sectarian site presenting a certain position within the Sufi tradition, rather than objective and/or academic views, and is not up to par with the official Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Reliable Source, and Wikipedia:Verifiability policies.  That's first.
Second, the same reference was kept but simply removing the marifah.net url and the insertion of one of the books promoted by that site.  Needless to say, this isn't a real change at all.  It's still the same POV, unreliable material simply in print instead of a website.  A cursory glance at the site and the books they promote will show that they only carry material in line with their own beliefs.  In regard to articles on organized religion and it's figures, this is no more acceptable than simply using the url as a reference.  The same breach of neutrality is there.
Last but not least, there is also the issue of the official Wikipedia:Notability guideline.  Al-Buti, while claimed to have had an infamous debate with Albani by the individual inserting these edits, is not well known himself and neither is the debate in actuality.  There is absolutely no information to be found on either the individual or the incident on mainstream academic sources; only different comments via POV Sufi and Salafi websites.  There is no reason to be carrying comments from a decidedly non-notable individual in this article; why should every random Muslim cleric have his opinion broadcast?  As mentioned in earlier discussions, Wikipedia is not a soapbox.
I would also mention, as an aside, that the immediate personal attacks by the individual making these additions have come off as rather suspicious.  Rather than simply discussing the difference of opinion in a civil manner, I was accused of being biased without evidence simply for removing poorly sourced POV content.  Please see edits and edit summaries here:   
Needless to say, this is wildly inappropriate.  There is no reason why anyone should be able to come along, violate the official Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy and insert dubiously sourced and highly negative material with no proof of notability and then further openly state that they intend to continue with these disruptions until they get their way.  Until any sort of legitimate and compelling case can be made for the edits, and in a civil fashion without insulting anybody else, then there is no reason at all why these biased edits should be allowed to stand. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your first point is no longer applicable as the reference to marifah.net was removed. Points two and three: You present an unsubstantiated claim that the referenced book is unreliable. The book was authored by an extremely respected and well known Syrian scholar whose works are carried by publishing houses in both the Arab world and the West. As for any uncivil behaviour on my part, once again, I extend my apology. I am still new to Wikipedia and learning proper etiquette. I trust you are mature enough to put it behind us. That said, I maintain your persistence in breaching WP:NPOV regarding Al-Albani. My evidence is the fact that you are censoring all criticism levelled against Al-Albani under the (ironic) pretext of neutrality, which can be witnessed on Al-Albani's Talk page, and the entry's history. Until you substantiate your claims of neutrality, there is no reason why your biased reverts should be allowed to stand. Thirteen36 (talk) 07:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your explanation. Do not take this offensively, but it is not my duty to prove that Al-Buti and his works are notable. As an editor on this article with authority on the subject matter, you should know this already. I certainly did not expect you to revert a valid edit on the basis of your unfamiliarity with its content. In any case, I do want to work with you, so I will do as you asked. Here are some facts illustrating the notability of Al-Buti and his book, Al-La Madhhabiyya. FACT: Al-Buti is the Head of the Beliefs and Religions Department in the Faculty of Islamic Law, Damascus University. This is notable. FACT: Damascus University is the oldest and largest university in Syria. This is notable. FACT: Al-Buti has over 44 publications, many of which have been translated into English and are popular in the West, such as Kubra Al-Yaqiniyat Al-Kawniyya, The Greatest Universal Sureties. This is notable. FACT: Al-Buti's book, Al-La Madhhabiyya, is well known in Arabic speaking circles. It is also printed by more than one Arabic publishing house. (I bought it in Cairo in 2003.) Due to its popularity, the book has recently been translated to English. This is notable. FACT: The website of the book's author, bouti.com, is extremely popular. Alexa measures its average monthly traffic in excess of 3 million hits. This is notable. FACT: Al-Buti differed with Albani on some of his views, and they had a debate. This is notable. All of this demonstrates that Al-Buti is a notable Muslim scholar who was a contemporary of Albani. For the sake of neutrality, references to their debate and Al-Buti's book are not only relevant, they are essential. If all criticism is omitted from the article, then it will be in violation of WP:NPOV. Thirteen36 (talk) 19:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent additions regarding al-Buti

message: I'm ashame of the article which nominated to be neutral but full of bias view. Albani is a contraversial figure and should be treated as one, no matter how great you admire him, not just Al Buti, many of other as Habib al-Rahman al-A`zami, The Moroccan hadith scholar `Abd Allah ibn Muhammad ibn al-Siddiq al-Ghumari, The Syrian hadith scholar `Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghudda, The Egyptian Hadith scholar Muhammad `Awwama and Mahmud Sa`id Mamduh, Saudi hadith scholar Isma`il ibn Muhammad al-Ansar have produce books and risalah to refute albani views on various issues.
Adyabdul (talk) 06:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: None of those additions were even close to being acceptable, I hate to say.  They were based off of masud.co.uk, ummah.net, and sunnah.org.  Please check the official Wikipedia:Verifiability policy and also the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guideline.  Those are all polemical sites run by people such as Keller, Masud, and Kabbani - they're sectarian views, and are neither academic nor neutral.  If you want to add information from reliable sources such as BBC or Arab News or something similar than that is fine, but what you put up wasn't acceptable for an encyclopedia at all.  Please read this section specifically - it would be no more neutral than to fill articles on people like Keller and Haddad with criticism sourced solely from Albani's website. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, there must be consistency. This means removing links and sources of both slants which appear to be unreliable. The guidelines for reliability can be seen here: WP:RS. Hence, we should be using good print materials in the form of scholarly books, journals, articles, and so on. Pro- or anti- Albani websites should really not be used as sources here, especially if reliability cannot be established. ITAQALLAH 11:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This articles entirely POV 

message: The words and actions of the Prophet Mohammad surely do not fall under the bracket of scientific knowledge, do they?
The author appears to be attempting to legitimise or sell his religion to the reader by mentioning science in reference to Hadith, and a proper cleanup or an entire rewrite is necessary.
:Check the Science of hadith as a reference for that. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference to Hadith and it's related material as science

message: What is the notes section? It is in the format of references but does  not actually refer to anything... Is this a British thing?
Supertouch (talk) 11:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes?

message: This article needs a definite overhaul. The detractors section can be reduced to a list without compromising its intent, the criticisms section summarized and then categorized - issues pertaining to fiqh, to aqidah and so on - and then the refutations of the criticism section can be summarized - I haven't read it in its entirety, but it seems rather unorganized at first glance.  Supertouch (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed all of that material as it was copied from http://www.sunnah.org/history/Innovators/al_albani.htm and I checked the wayback machine to verify that the archied article predates the appearance of teh material in this article as it was from Sept 30, 2000. -- Whpq (talk) 21:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is overwhelmed by criticism and refutation of that criticism 

message: User: User:Wphq deserves an award for resolving that simmering edit war with User:Rob Lockett. Cutting and pasting from a sectarian website and then not referencing that website (at least not that I saw) is rather unscrupulous. Supertouch (talk) 13:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Thanks Wphq!!!'''

message: I have removed some cut and paste material from  which is being repeatedly added to the article.--Supertouch (talk) 10:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio 

message: The article mentions school of thought to be "originally hanafi". Noting that he is a renowned salafi and that he has reverted from the hanafi school and also he has condemned the taqleed concept, along with the fact that most of his methodology and fatwas differ from hanafiism, it will be most appropriate to change the school of thought to ahlehadis or salafi in the right hand box.Abdunnoor Patankar (talk) 19:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  School 

message: Okay, I understand the need for another section (the Controversy section) to show the negative views of some people, as stated in the above discussions, but it is COMPLETELY BIASED. Most of it is copied and pasted. I am not saying that there is something wrong with the information. All I am requesting is that the negative opinions of SOME people about the subject person be represented in an appropriate manner, and not be an outright defamation. Here I will further go into detail:
- There is no neutrality, since most of it is copied and pasted from a source with no neutrality (remember Wikipedia offers NEUTRAL content).
- The user did not edit much to make it neutral, rather it seems that anything that hasn't been copied and pasted from the source is a biased opinion from himself.
eg. "he had not a real knowledge in Hadith, and his classifications of hadith are not to be taken serious"
- The usage of words from the source should be brought down to an understandable level, not only english words but the arabic transliterated words.
eg. "staunchly and vociferously" and "SAHIH", "DAEEF", "sanad", "fiqh", "madhhab" and many others...
- The tone of the section isn't neutral. The use of words and structure creates a tone that is completely intended for persuasive influence.
eg. "SAHIH!!!", "displaying hypocrisy when they go around making it a priority to attack the followers of the Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i or Hanbali schools of Sacred Law".
- The title of the section is "Controversy"; this does not seem to be an appropriate title. It is a noun and seems to be referring to an event. It is supposed to be a counter to the heading above entitled "Positive Views and Admirers"; therefore, it should have a similar type of heading, but of course being opposite in meaning.
- The section DOES NOT stick to what its supposed to be speaking of. It goes off into other subjects, which are NOT relevant to this entire article.
eg. "These people seem to contradict themselves, as well as displaying hypocrisy when they go around making it a priority to attack the followers of the Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i or Hanbali schools of Sacred Law; even though they themselves are practising taqleed of an individual(s)!" ...this has nothing to with Muhammad Nasiruddin...
It is apparent that the "Controversy" section has been edited and put in recently, thus many Wikipedians may not have caught sight of it as yet. All of what I have said is not from MY opinion about Muhammad Nasiruddin; I am merely trying to improve the quality of this article and particularly the section spoken about above. If no changes are made, then I will try to edit the article myself (following guidelines while I do so).
Thanks alot. Hamzah1995 (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to improve a biased section 

message: There has been some disussion on user pages regarding the subject's relationship with these two movements. I think most can agree that it's a complicated relationship, but let's start with seeing if we can gather more sources. This would help the article in general as it's already undersourced. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship with Wahhabism and Salafism 

message: I have removed the title "Mujaddid" for al-Albani as this is not a universal view held by all Muslims. Using this title would certainly fail Wikipedia guidelines of impartiality. Please read  Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for further information. (CheckDigit1)  —Preceding undated comment added 19:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mujaddid title 

message: We have at least 2 spellings of the name: Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani and Muhammad Naasiruddeen al-Albani. I think the actual spelling should be Nasir al-Din al-Albani.RookTaker (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: One editor seems insistent on adding Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani's name in Arabic script, even though he was an Albanian, not an Arab. Sure, the origins of his names are Arabic, but following that logic would necessitate every single Michael or Gabriel in the world having his name also written in Hebrew, because both Michael and Gabriel were originally Hebrew names. Clearly that would be ridiculous. If another language is going to added to this intro, it shouldn't be Arabic, but the Albanian language. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 11:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes a ton of sense, actually; I really don't know why someone would choose to write it in a language other than that of the article's subject. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name in Arabic 

message: These cannot be two sections but one section. Messiaindarain (talk) 08:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: What does that even mean? Saheeh Info 10:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: '''"Criticism" and "controversy"'''

message: Please keep negative/ positive / criticism under this section. 
My suggestion is to merge the "Legacy" section with this section as "legacy and criticism" or "Evaluation."103.198.136.31 (talk) 05:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Reception

message: for good faith edits.Messiaindarain (talk) 08:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is interesting that an editor who seems keen to ignore what amounted to an editor consensus is himself pushing a POV and introducing weak sources. The MuslimMatters.org website is not a "notable exception to the WP:RS"?. That's unsustainable. It is not a reliable source. Neither are these: http://www.maroc.nl/forums/islam-en-meer/74746-reply-op-leugens-over-albanee-ra7iemmoe-allah.html.  http://immamalbani.blogspot.co.uk/p/biography-of-immam-nasir.html. http://darussalam.net/inside/227-Sheikh-Albani1.pdf Regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 08:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Fully agree with . The sources used are just lame.Saheeh Info 09:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

text: Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Block

message: There seems to be a lack of a photo on the Main Page of Muhammad Nasiruddin Al Albani. I uploaded a photo of him on the Multimedia. Here the Image Source: Al-Albani.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Al-Albani.jpg  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmadsafi1212 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of Photo  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani. 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://www.webcitation.org/5PwCqkfzF?url=http://abdurrahman.org/tawheed/tawassul-albaani.htm to http://abdurrahman.org/tawheed/tawassul-albaani.htm
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) 18:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: Al Albani was a Salafi and the Salafi sect is repudiated by all traditional Sunnis. We, Sunnis, do not consider salafis to be Sunnis as they reject traditional methods of information transmission of the Sunnis in favour of a completely different approach. They reject the fiqh and theology of the Sunnis in favour of the suppositions of a few of their favourite "scholars" (some of whom are not even recognised as scholars at all by Sunnis). The Salafis also do not consider themselves to be Sunnis but rather to be Salafis. 
Despite this, my edit to the article changing his denomination to Salafi was reverted. The only thing that this accomplishes is perpetuating the dangerous misinformation that Salafis are Sunnis, which is a claim rejected by most Sunnis and most Salafis. Given that the status of Salafis as Sunnis is only partially accepted at best, yet everyone understands al Albani to be a Salafi, and he is named as a Salafi in the article itself, his sect in the sidebar should be listed as Salafi, not Sunni.
Khanates (talk) 05:18, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sunni or Salafi? 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: moved per request.  Favonian (talk) 11:39, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani →  Al-Albani is far far much the WP:COMMONNAME than Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani. See the  [Ngrams]. Hoping for a quick move. AlbaniFanman (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

text: I can see some validity in your argument, but was this the only al-Albani in the Midde East? I think that a move may confuse readers if an article about another al-Albani is created in the future.--Maleschreiber (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: , sorry for the late reply. If you search Al-Albani on Google, Google Books, or Google Scholar, only this Salafi scholar only appears up. There's no other Middle Eastern guy.AlbaniFanman (talk) 15:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move February 2022