Talk:Abdul-Aziz Ibn Baz/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Teacher

His teachers included Muhammad ibn Ibraheem, Al-Ateeq, Abdurrahman ibn Hassan Aal-Shaikh, and Mohammad Ameen Al-Shanqeeti.

hagiography

This article is pure Salafi hagiography, save for Striver's Shi'a-POV edit at the top. It completely fails to put Ibn Baz in any kind of context. There are many Muslims who feel that the kind of Islam he espoused is narrow, rigid, and intolerant, and have no respect for him whatsoever. This should find a place in the article. Zora 21:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree w/ Zora. Many Muslims don't agree with bin baz's fatwas, and not for being too "conservative" or anything like that, but just for ignoring certain evidence and going against the ijma (consensus) of scholars.

---

An anon editor deleted the above comments and replaced them with:

Shaykh bin baaz is one of the greatest islamic scholars in the past century. He is accepted and respected by the majority of muslims i.e. Ahl sunnah. Allah yarhammu. Those who speak ill of him (the minority of so called muslims) seing as he has passed away only raise his swaab and harm themselves.

Anon, comments on talk pages are to be left as they are; only the original author can edit them. If you do this again, you could be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Zora 03:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Copyvio 17 July 2005

An anon editor inserted a whole lot of information about bin Baz on 17 July 2005. Unfortunately, it was all lifted verbatim from this site. Per the copyvio policy for existing pages, I reverted to the last non-copyvio version. Just FYI. --Skoosh 03:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

after 2 years:

the problem of copyvio policy for existing pages still existed, some users forced MezzoMezzo to start making sense and bring over references and restructure the article as in terms of structure, it was copied and pasted from the mentioned website. Unfortunatly the user MezzoMezzo still argues credibility. My eyesChubeat8 22:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

There is already a Ibn Baz article

Actually, this article should be merged with Ibn Baz, which I just found. People are more likely to look for Ibn Baz then they are for the whole dang name. Zora 03:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Lets standardize this name to Abd-al-Aziz ibn Abd-Allah ibn Baaz. --Striver 17:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

No respons in almost a half year, so ill go ahead. --Striver 07:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Merged

Merged tidied and partly verified. Needs more work. Hijri dates need to be converted. Also mention his support of the dreaded Mutawwa (religious police).--Anjouli 16:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab needs to be merged into this article. --Striver 15:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Why? He is a historical character. Ibn Baaz is a modern character. They are two completely different people.--Anjouli 07:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Lol, sorry, messed up, thought they both where bin Baz.... *feeling stupid* :P --Striver 13:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Sun

This is the Ibn Baz article. Topics related to him is to be presented her. You have not a single valid argument for removing that statment. --Striver 14:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Hullo Manojano1

M, I heavily copyedited your contribution, both because there were no references (any cites for the crying episode?)) and because it seemed to be written from a Salafi point of view that is critical of the Saudi government. The wording used implied that the reader SHOULD share your feelings about Salafism, government policies, recent political events, etc. I tried to remove all the assumptions and give a completely neutral description. I may not have succeeded, of course. In particular, I may have "unpacked" your views incorrectly, in assuming that you would describe yourself as a Salafi, that the reformists spoke from that viewpoint, etc. Perhaps you were referring to secularist viewpoints, if there are such in Saudi Arabia? Zora 09:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Not a great beginning

( he was a Muslim scholar and a staunch opponent of Shias and Mut'ah. He legalized the Misyar marriage.) I think this part of the article is extremely misplaced , I really dont think it is the most prominant part of the sheiks life or what he represented . He lived a long and very full life , and beginning the article with such a trivial peice of information is inappropriate !Hhnnrr 16:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

That was placed there by a Shi'a editor who is willing to revert indefatigably in defense of his edits. It was left to avoid a fight. Since the editor involved is now embroiled in a 9/11 controversy, it might be safe to remove that bit which IS intrusive. Zora 19:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand the argument of that this is supposed to be NPOV. However, it is also supposed to be something that is an educational resource where one can derive benefit. If we need to put every POV, regardless of how revelant it is, the worth of the project will be lost. I think that is a small part of his life and should be removed. Since no one has objected, I can do it. ZaydHammoudeh 00:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Scratch above. I did not know it had been changed already. Sorry. ZaydHammoudeh 00:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

would someone mind doing that , i have an open proxy Hhnnrr 13:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

2.6 Death

Dont you think that this section sounds too baised? Difference of opinion is one thing but entry in section 2.6 is just leading, provocative and just too sarcastic to be a part of any encyclopedia. I suggest it should be re-written with dignity showing the respect which should be offered to a scholar no matter which school of thought he belonged too. Saqibsohail 07:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Flat earth allegations

Does anyone have an independent authority on the meaning of his infamous "flat earth" fatwa? He claimed that he did not say that the earth was flat, and that he didn't even declare those who affirm its rotation to be unbelievers, although he holds that position to be false. He claimed that he just declared any who say that the sun does not revolve around the earth to be unbelievers (the motion of the sun around the earth in a "course" being "[in collision] with the clarity of the Noble Qur’an and the pure authentic Sunnah which both prove that the sun and the moon both run on a course")

If you look on Muslim flat earth theories you will find more on this topic, apparently there was never a fatwa on the issue, just a misunderstood interview. But the letter on the website referenced appears to be from the Mufti. So he's not a flat-earther, just a geocentrist. That puts him in agreement with the Medieval Catholics... --Slashme 12:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Disputed

Dates of birth and death

Could someone check the conversion from islamic calendar to the Gregorian calendar. One source lists his date of death as May 13, rather than May 12. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Major edits recently

I noticed that a long series of large edits to the article were done recently. For the most part they look good and surprisingly balanced but they also seem to lack sources almost entirely. I will get to working on fixing that soon but in the future please come to the talk page first with any major edits or restructuring. MezzoMezzo 21:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

rev of flat earth, gulf war and ObL sections

62.150.9.30 deleted every issue remotely controversial or of interest to the uninformed reader from the article. I have replaced them. --Leroy65X 23:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Good job, that completely slid past me. MezzoMezzo 04:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent addition of fatawa

Recently, an edit with some strong POV overtones was added in the form of some fatwas from this person. While much of the material does seem legit, is was presented in a very biased manner; Wahhabi, for example, is a very contentious term in most instances especially considering the guy never called himself that. In addition, this is not Wikiquote; refer to the Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles guidelines as far as avoiding a quotefarm. Bin Baz made many Fatwas, and it would make a mess of the article to list them all here. This, coupled with the fact that the ones provided are not necessarily any more relevant than any other he has made makes it a bit silly to keep a separate section for them, especially considering that the current consensus version of the controversy section is already apt.
Also, please do not simply rewrite or insert entirely new sections without gaining the approval of other editors first; review the official Wikipedia:Consensus for more information on that. For the time being, I am considering the issue closed. MezzoMezzo 02:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine MezzoMezzo, take a look at the sources and make sure to do the correction you see fit. From His Fatwas is an important part that characterized the uniqueness of this scholar..However modifications will be made, still his idea must be shown to the public. So go ahead with your corrections and we will go ahead with making sure his ideas rom his official website are exposed to the public..no sir, the issue is just openning..thanks

His official website is already under the external links section, along with a number of other sites about his life and his views. That is sufficient; if you would like to add a section underneath the external links, then that is fine. Regardless, you have failed to explain why turning the article into a quote farm would enhance it or why posting some specific fatwa (among the hundreds he made during his lifetime) is necessary for the article, especially considering his ideas are already shown just fine. The current version of the article was put together by a number of editors here over a long period of time and with some serious teamwork; one anonymous user coming along and deciding he wants to change it doesn't suddenly open some sort of an issue, please review the official Wikipedia:Consensus policy. Also, the fact that you falsely accused me of violating Wikipedia policy and refused to even discuss the issue up until you recently hit your Wikipedia:Three-revert rule limit doesn't do much to help your credibility. Unless you can reasonably explain why this new addition beyond what is already here is important, then the issue is closed. Thank you. MezzoMezzo 03:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks MezzoMezzo, I have no problem understanding your point, nevertheless, I offer my respect to the way you (and the collectivity) see this article should be. I understand that should the controvertial Fatawa be addressed at Wikipedia, then my be a hole new article should be created sepqaratly and a link should be offered at the bottom of Bin Baaz article like you stated. Now I renew my thanks to you again..take care! PS, in the Fatawa article, you will be invited to edit without restriction and show you arguments freely..good day to you!

I never stated to create a separate article nor did I say to put any sort of a link at the bottom of this one, so please do not accuse me of saying things that I clearly did not. All my responses may be seen above. In addition, a separate article is not necessary as there is not a sufficient amount of controversy outside the links you and some other anonymous users provided on this and the article on Albani. My response in regard to this supposed separate article can be seen here. It has already been nominated for speedy deletion as it should be. Please stop disrupting Wikipedia to make a point as this may teeter dangerously close to violating the official Wikipedia:Vandalism policy. MezzoMezzo 19:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

-- thanks Mezzo, but I think over time, your credibility somehow is going to be questioned and your main article disputed. See in the Ibn Baaz official homepage! the Aarabic page they call for Jihad and the English page they call for peace and love. Wikipedia is where thinks get to be known. All Arabic contents -ligit- will be placed about your scholar. Just a matter of time doing the translation. As for the new article, it is by and large based on way more references than your main article. All the references are verified ligit. We even offered you videos, what else do you need!

I see what you're doing a mile away, so there's no need to be coy. While you are subtle, your comments are teetering around the official Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy:

1. I made a comment about your credibility because you falsely accused me of violating Wikipedia policy here. Throwing around things like that isn't very professional or responsible. You, however, seem to simply be making a personal remark to "get back" at me as you have not indicated why my credibility would be in question.
2. It is not "my" main article, it is Wikipedia's and has been worked on by a number of editors. This is not some sort of personal "me vs. you" or "my guy vs. your guy" thing, so please do not make it into that.
3. Jihad is a subject within Islam and has many different uses. I can see that your subtle suggestion is that Bin Baz speaks about peace and love to non-Muslims and holy war to Muslims, but that simply isn't the case and to suggest the dude is that two-faced is very unfair and dishonest.
4. All Arabic contents of his site will not be placed on the article because his entire site is not relevant to his biography - a telling of who, what, where, why, and how. Also, please review the official Wikipedia:Copyrights policy and the Wikipedia:Guide to layout page in the manual of style; also keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a quote farm nor is it a place to simply copy and paste every last detail about a person. Articles should be short and succint.
5. He is not "my" scholar. Again, avoid turning this into a me vs. you thing and please, please review the official Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy. This is getting to be silly.
6. Most of the references you have provided are not legit for two very important reasons. First, almost all of the material that you have provided is not in English. Because this is English Wikipedia, these links to not cut it for the official Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Secondly, sites like albrhan.org are Hate sites and while they may be acceptable as information on an opposing point of view, they are not legitimate at all as a fair showcase of the opinions of a person whom they openly declare to be a heretic.

I think that you need to take a step back before replying to this, as you seem to be getting heated to the point of being passive-aggressive toward me. This is not a personal conflict. In addition, you should review the language that you are using; you are not the final arbiter of what shall or shall not be included in an article; for the umpteenth time, I am asking you to view the official Wikipedia:Consensus policy. MezzoMezzo 01:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Bin Baaz did not endorse the Oslo Peace Accord. Bin Laden criticized him for being a pupet of his government. Very suspicious insertion. We ask that this section to be deleted or an insertion of Ibn Baaz fatwa endorsing peace with Israel.

The reference was already there though a section for references wasn't; I went and added it.

Furthermore, your edit here was blatantly POV and not "exacty what is written in" the given reference. Please review the Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point behavioral guideline. MezzoMezzo 17:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

From Chubeat8: Thank MezzoMezzo for your input, the references added on the Oslo accord and Ibn Baaz accespting it were verified and were legitimate. The english source you cited before was improper as you linked the accord to that proof source. However, by adding those references you legitimized stating that Ibn Baaz , and therfore although not in the earlier english source, Ossama logically can be believed to have criticized the Shaikh for that..Thanks and more refernces are always good..Question Mezzo: what is wrong in adding a paragraph that will reveal to the readers his world view -the Shaikh-! I mean what he thinks about the Western culture, the other Muslim schools of thought etc..what is wrong with adding just his views on that, wouldd'nt that make this article more sound!

I wasn't the one who cited the original source; the section for controversy was written before I started helping with this article. As for adding a paragraph, I have already explained that to you numerous times and you can see all my comments just above here and on the Albani article. I don't feel the need to repeat myself simply because you keep beating a dead horse. I still no longer assume good faith in your intentions for the reasons I explained here. Even in this last comment you've shown the lack of sincerity in your motive:

reveal to the readers his world view -the Shaikh-! I mean what he thinks about

So please don't patronize me or anyone else reading this. From what can be gathered from your own comments and edits, you seem to be either aiming for subtle character assassination or to simply disrupt Wikipedia. Please be mature and respectful of the seriousness of this site. MezzoMezzo 02:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

After reading over most of this discussion, I tend to agree with MezzoMezzo on most of what has already been brought up. I strongly urge anyone here with negative views of Sheikh Ibn Baaz to refrain from manifesting them here, as there is simply no need. Keep up the good work, MezzoMezzo. Bu Seif

Neutrality in question

Reviewing other scholars academic and religious (example: Khomeini, Pipes, Nasrallah etc..) there was never a problem and they all have a section about their opinions. This article needs one about the subject famous opinions. Of course not in the improper way contributor Chubeat8 has done. It seems that Chubeat8 intends to attack although some elements of his unorganized, out of rule contribution are ligitimate. Thanks

I don't think the articles on Pipes and Khomeini are exactly good examples. The Daniel Pipes article is bloated and poorly laid out, while the article on Ruhollah Khomeini has some neutrality issues as well. The article on Hassan Nasrallah is informative though a section for views is not necessary, and a lack of one is not a violation of the official Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. While you can suggest that it could be improved by a section on views, to check it for POV simply because it lacks one is inappropriate.

As for User:Chubeat8, none of his contributions were legitimate as he made it more than clear that his intention was to seed criticism subtly in the views section. I'm not saying that reflects on you any, but as can be seen in the discussion here and on the page for Albani he has worn assumptions of his good faith in. Also, please remain signed in when you edit, as your IP address is oddly close to the same three that Chubeat8 used when he attacked the Muhammad Naasiruddeen al-Albaanee article (do a quick WHOIS on all of those). If you're being serious then I apologize for jumping the gun, but you have to understand that given the sneakiness we've seen on this page and others i'm not completely out of line for suspecting Chubeat8 of using sock puppets. I'm just trying to get to the bottom of what's been going on there, i'm sure you can understand. MezzoMezzo 19:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

the IP address is no argument to make..but It is clear that the other user was aggressive, out of rule and appears somehow attacking..I criticized that user for the way he came in. I find it also easy pretty much for any user to fall in the trap of attacking, especially when there is small point to make which other persons were not fair enough to hear. Daniel Pipes and other articles are in my view better than this one as thgere is a lot of diverse input into them. This one seems like the official website of Sheikh Ibn Baz. There was a lot of just copy and paste and all other than the seem to be official has been ruled out. Swapant

I'm not making an argument, i'm just stating my suspicion. The discussion with him above, as you can see, has put me on a "high alert" so to speak. Anyways, if you feel this article needs more diverse input then that is fine, it can be worked on. I just want to make sure there's no funny business, i'm sure you feel the same way. MezzoMezzo 20:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

"none of his contributions were legitimate" I think, like I said before- that CHUBEAT8 has legitimate points, he had some emotions on the way those points were added. It is clear that his latest contributions are very good and benificial for the article. As long as there is a verifiable fact stating on the subject, there should be no problem. User: Swapant

Good and beneficial? More like intentionally dishonest and damaging. They must be removed. My following comments will now be directed to Chubeat8 in specific though anyone viewing this page may benefit. Take a look at this:

His first edit is here. The included reference provides proof that the Shaikh did indeed make a ruling against birthday celebrations. It does not, however, provide proof that there was any significant controversy over this. A major publication accusing the guy of making flat-earth remarks caused controversy. The political fallout from the first Gulf War is controversy. Being the subject of the first public pronouncement of the biggest terrorist in the world is controversy. One BBC article reporting his ruling, with no follow up stories or public outcry, is not controversy, especially considering that Bin Baz is one of many scholars that have made such rulings against birthdays.

The second edit is here. This edit was either made without reading the very source given for it or is a blatant intentional lie.

• First of all, according to that very reference, he did not make takfir of Muslims who perform dhikr or all Sufis. He said:

"They recite these prayers in congregations of Dhikr (remembrance of Allah) or in the mosques after the Maghrib (sunset) prayers in the belief that such prayers will take them nearer to Allah."

The specific ruling was group dhikr, not all dhikr. It is well known that Bin Baz supported the benefit of dhikr in accordance with the Qur'an and Sunnah, not what he viewed in his own opinion as an innovation. People are free to disagree with his opinion but to accuse him of saying this when he clearly did not - and has said otherwise on numerous occasions - is a great injustice and highly irresponsible.

• As for the claims that he regarded Sufis as polytheists and wrongdoers, this is another incorrect statement. He said in that very article referenced:

"With regard to your question concerning some of the Sufis (mystics) who utter in the mosques and in some other places phrases such as `O Lord, grant peace and blessings on the one whom you have ordained to be instrumental in the unfolding of Your Mighty Secrets and in opening the doors to the sublime lights of Your Mercy and who has thus become Your vicegerent and who has inherited Your Hidden Secrets... etc.' The answer to this would be: All such utterances are nothing but pedantry and empty talk against which our Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم has warned us."

So he wasn't making a remark about ALL Sufis, just those specific people who make comments like the above that he described. Again, that's fine if you disagree but don't put words in his mouth.

• Furthermore, the quote you provide from that article doesn't mention anything about Sufis or group dhikr, so it doesn't support the overarching point, which as I have just proven was false to begin with. Also, just to point out again, this doesn't belong underneath the controversy section. As I said before, you are free to disagree with his opinion but doing so does not in and of itself create controversy.

The third edit is here. In this last edit, you have once again made factually inaccurate claims.

• First, he never said that all Qadariya Sufis are non-Muslims; he said that Qadianiya aren't. It's an entirely different group most often known by the name of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, and many Muslim scholars - even Sufis - support this opinion about the Qadianiyas, so simply citing it doesn't prove it's controversy. Please check the reference you put up again. Qadariyya and Qadianiyya are two different groups.
• As for the second claim, i'm going to go a step further: you are lying. You are obviously, blatantly lying as anyone can see who reads the reference you cited and I don't see how this could have been an honest mistake. Your edit says that:

"[Shia]] Muslims including Ayatollah Khomeini as Non-Mulsims or Kafir"

But the reference says that:

"Khomeini has a book in which he mentions the excellence of the Imaams (Hassan and Hussein et al) of the family of the Prophet (sal-Allaahu `alayhe wa sallam) over and above the Prophets and the Messengers (`alayhim as-salaam); (So) based upon this (statement of his) he is not a Muslim."

That's it. He says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about all Shia Muslims, just about Khomeini. There is no way this could just be a typing error; you are blatantly lying about what the reference says and once again, the reference in and of itself is not proof of controversy.

Don't think I can't see what you're doing Chubeat8; it's the same bunch of edits as before. You tried to create a separate sections for his views, which as I pointed out is not relevant nor helpful and you also mistranslated and twisted the man's words there as well. Your edits here are, once again, simply showing his views - and this time you are actually lying and inserting factually inaccurate material. This is vandalism, the only difference is you're trying to pass it off under the controversy section as a legit edit, which in and of itself is inappropriate. You have forced me to go to administrators with this, and other editors shall be warned about what is going on here as well. MezzoMezzo 20:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Incoherence. Career section

There is an absence of coherence is the section career. Its sub-sections are not related to it. Example:

Career: a. Flat earth c. Bin laden

What does the flat earth alegation has to do with his career! and so as Bin Laden Reorganization of ideas seen necessary. Swapant

You are indeed correct. I can get a reshuffling of these sections done in just a few moments. MezzoMezzo 19:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

gazette source not found!! most of this article was copy and past from Ibn Baaz official website

and therefore, the links were provided..Swapant

I noticed that too, and the references you have provided were very good.

However, removing the Gazette references was inappropriate. You know that I was the one who added them; the first course of action when you disagree with an edit should be to discuss it with the other parties involved, not to simply deleted the content without asking; please review the official Wikipedia:Resolving disputes policy. If you would like to see the Saudi Gazette articles, then I can find them for you after I handle some stuff at work. MezzoMezzo 20:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

That is excellent, you can add the Gazette than, in anycase the official website talks for it. I like the way you reorganized the article. I did not check the Albani you mentioned. But we will discuss that and other staff too. user: Swapant

I got a clipping of the article here. MezzoMezzo 03:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Official webpage of Ibn Baaz in english is not the same like arabic

there is a lot of political correctness and inexactidudes on the eglish page compared the arabic. Mezzo, at least now you confess there was something not ok with this article. I just can not imagine how you did not spot the copy and past issue. Wiki world is not to make official websites of subjects copied and pasted. that is very poor doing. that is why it is not neutral -this article-. also, now you have all the a section of controversy..which is the only amelioration i can tell about this article. sorry for acting out of the rules in previous instances. i believe still my point was and still valid, how that was put in , was invalide. chubeat8

First of all, the Arabic page you're looking at is far longer and larger than the English page. The English page is a translation of just some of the material from the Arabic; obviously nobody has taken the time to translate the Arabic page into English fully. As for it being due to political correctness, that's just an accusation based on doubt, not any proof.

Secondly, the page you're talking about is no longer his official page. The Arabic page linked to in the article, which you're referring to as his official page has not been updated regularly since 2003. It can be seen here. The English version can be seen here. The English one being, of course, what you have been blatantly misquoting from as I proved in the above comments. His ACTUAL official page can be seen here. You'll notice that there is no dash in the URL. It's an entirely different site. I'll go make the appropriate changes now.

As for your accusation that I am just now "confessing" something is wrong with this article, I never said the article was perfect to begin with. Once again, you need to review the official Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy because your behavior is getting out of hand.

As for copying and pasting, I never noticed it before because it was never cited before because, as I pointed out above, that English page you're reading is no longer offocial and no longer updated regularly. Also, only one section of this article seemed to be directly copy-pasted; the rest was appropriately different and paraphrasing and simply needed to be cited.

Furthermore, since it isn't his official site anyway I don't see how it's a POV violation. It also isn't the only source to even if it were a POV violation that wouldn't invalidate the entire article. Stop wasting everyone's time and shape up if you're going to be serious about editing. MezzoMezzo 21:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Birthday celebration controversy !!

The idea that birthday celebrations in Islaam are an innovation should not be controversial at all. The Prophet (SallaAllaahu 'Alayhi wa-Sallam) explained that there are only two celebrations for his ummah: Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-'Adhaa. Also, he said that the people of his Ummah (that would be us) would follow the kuffaar (i.e. Jews and Christians) step-by-step; so much so that if they entered a lizard's hole we would enter it right after them. The Prophet (SallaAllaahu 'Alayhi wa-Sallam) and his Righteous Companions never celebrated their own birthdays. Indeed, they probably didn't even know when they were born. It is for these reasons and more that Muslims are not to celebrate birthdays--an innovation of the Kuffaar. Bu Seif

---

Bu Seif! the way you talk has a lot of Mosque style speech giving. Here is an academic word and we do not say Jesus the lord or Muhamad Salalahu alayhiwassalama..need to work on how to be academic and not missionary par-excellence. Remember more than 80% 0f the world are not Muslims and they do not understand the longue arabic pharases you are adding.

---

Is there anyone in here that finds the prohibition of birtday celebration not controversial! I think this one supported by one article from BBC and one copy of the fatwa link to the Ibn Baz official webpage should be returned under section controvery. If not, then the neutrality tag should stay there forever. It seems that one can not display controversial opinions of Ibn Baz in here. Any discussion on this particular point are welcome, I do not entend to get apologistic justifications.User: Swapant.

Just because you disagree with the opinion does not make it controversial. Also, even the BBC article itself never claimed it was controversial. In addition, there don't appear to be any follow up stories from the BBC nor are there any reports of any sort of outrage.

If that is your only gripe, then the neutrality tag will be removed. It is not an issue of bias; it is the simple fact that an editor disagreeing with a subject's opinion does not make it controversial. MezzoMezzo 22:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Reconsideration

In the above, Mezzo-Mezzo denounce adding material just because they are reported by bbc as he claims bbc does not grant the status of notability. See the contradiction here [1] where Mezzo-Mezzo asks others for something like bbc sourced to consent the additions..the peak of contradictions ever. swapant 15:06, 9 september 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you have got to be kidding me. Not only are you Wikistalking me again but also lying about what I said here before.

I never said BBC doesn't prove notability; I said that the specific BBC article provided doesn't claim the fatwa was controversial. Again, you are only proving that he made the fatwa, not that it caused any controversy. Seriously, this is getting really old. MezzoMezzo 19:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

From Chubeat8: Mezzo, you are very questionable. Who in the world does not find banning birthday celebration not controversial..common, do not be preaching wahabism in Wikipedia. you always swing around ideas. I find the way you handle this subject is very dishonest. I will write something with proofs to the administrator stating my point of view on this article which seems preaching for Wahabism rather than explaining it and showing things related to it. FYI

First of all, Wahhabism is a slur so please don't hurl it at me.

Secondly, your reasoning is ridiculous. A rhetorical "Who doesn't find it controversial?" is not proof; it's just your opinion. And it sounds like an excuse for the fact that you can't provide proof for the claim that the guy's ruling caused any controversy at all.

Thirdly, he's not the only Muslim scholar to make a ruling against birthday celebrations. In fact there are dozens of modern day scholars and many more scholars of the past who have done this same, so this opinion isn't even unique to Bin Baz.

Fourthly, me pointing out that you both have failed to provide any proof for your wild claims - and this after I caught you red handed lying about sources and spreading misinformation - is not pushing any specific viewpoint, whether it be "Wahhabi" or other. I haven't even made any comments on what my own opinions are so for you to accuse me of having any certain viewpoint at all shows your true intentions.

Fifthly, do not call me dishonest unless you can prove it, which I know you cannot.

Lastly, I don't just support you contacting an administrator; i'm asking you too. I really, really want you to bring attention the subtle vandalism and character assassination you're doing. It's sort of ironic that someone who is a proven liar and borderline vandal is threatening to contact the admins, let's all do it actually. You can keep bringing your lack of objectivity and your doubts and i'll keep blasting them into the pits of Mars where they belong.

Also, once again, please actually READ this: Wikipedia:No personal attacks. MezzoMezzo 00:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually you know what? I have some free time, so i'm going to go into - once again - all the problems with your recent edits to this article.
First, your claim that Bin Baz making a ruling against birthdays was controversial was made in this edit. The source you cited for the edit is here. This source says:

Posters have been going up in the Saudi Arabian capital, Riyadh, saying it is heresy under Islam to hold parties and give presents on birthdays.

The posters are copies of a religious decree issued three years ago by the country's top religious leader, Sheikh Abdulaziz bin Baz.

The decree adds that the same prohibition applies to companies and institutions marking anniversaries.

Religious decrees in Saudi Arabia normally carry the endorsement of the ruling family.

But the BBC Gulf correspondent says there is mounting speculation that this publication could be timed to embarrass the government.

Nationwide celebrations are due later this month to celebrate the centenary of the conquest of Riyadh by the nation's founding father, King Abdulazid al-Saud.

But some people say the posters were aimed at Christian expatriates in Saudi Arabia, who have been privately celebrating Christmas and New Year.

Nowhere in that article does it say that the ruling caused any sort of controversy or public outrage. At all. So why it makes a note that he did make such a ruling, it doesn't prove that it was controversial. Furthermore, it is well know that Salafis - Bin Baz being one of many prominent Muslim scholars who are Salafi - don't celebrate birthdays. None of them do. So unless you're going to accuse everyone of that religious belief of being controversial, then I would just drop it before you get yourself in any deeper. For more information on Salafis - not just Bin Baz - who do not believe that celebrating birthdays is permissible in Islam, read this; that forum is a very good example of what most Salafis believe. So again, the belief is not unique to Bin Baz and his ruling against birthdays amongst the many other Salafi scholars who made rulings against birthdays is not even significant.
Secondly, in this edit you misquoted Bin Baz on what he said about both Dhikr and Sufis. In your edit, you said:

Shaikh ibn Baaz in a letter on the ruling regarding Muslims who do Dikr and additional prayers -the Suffi Muslims-, he regarded them as Polytheists and inovators that become wrong doers.

The reference you cited for this can be found here. If we read this web page for what the guy actually said in this letter, we can see first that he didn't declare people who do dhikr and additional prayers to be polytheists and innovators, but rather just congregational dhikr that was made to people other than Allah:

I am in receipt of your letter regarding certain worships at specified times of the day or night practised privately by Muslims of your country. These are prayers to which Allah has not granted any power; among these prayers are those that have been introduced as innovations and those that are polytheistic; they attribute such prayers to the Commander of the Faithful, `Ali bin Abi Tâlib رضي الله عنه and to others. They recite these prayers in congregations of Dhikr (remembrance of Allah) or in the mosques after the Maghrib (sunset) prayers in the belief that such prayers will take them nearer to Allah. During these prayers, they utter phrases such as, 'O men of Allah, help us with the Help of Allah and be of succour to us.' They also say, `O you leaders of authority, O you masters, please respond to our prayers, O you, who possess all help; please intercede with Allah on behalf of this slave who is pleading to you at your door, seized by the fear of his failings; help us O Prophet of Allah; I do not have anyone else to whom I can plead; it is you through whom our wishes can be fulfilled; you are the best of the people of Allah like Hamza, the leader of all martyrs; no one other than you can help us; O Prophet of Allah, come to our help.' They also say, `O Allah, bless the one you have made as a means for revealing your mighty secrets and your Divine light; he became a true vicegerent and inheritor of all Your Truth.'

So it was very specific and nowhere near as broad as you said. As for your ridiculous claim that he also considered Sufis to be polytheists and innovators:

With regard to your question concerning some of the Sufis (mystics) who utter in the mosques and in some other places phrases such as `O Lord, grant peace and blessings on the one whom you have ordained to be instrumental in the unfolding of Your Mighty Secrets and in opening the doors to the sublime lights of Your Mercy and who has thus become Your vicegerent and who has inherited Your Hidden Secrets... etc.' The answer to this would be: All such utterances are nothing but pedantry and empty talk against which our Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم has warned us.

So we can see that he again was being very specific: just Sufis who make statements such as the above. You were also making this statement out to be much more broad than it really is.
Then we have your next dubious set of claims, that he declared all Shia and Qadiri Sufis to not be Muslim. You made that claim in this edit, your exact wording being:

Shaikh Ibn Baz declared the Qadiriya Suffi Muslims and Shia Muslims including Ayatollah Khomeini as Non-Mulsims or Kafir.

The reference you cited for the claim that he declared Qadiriya Sufis to not be Muslims can be found here. It's a relatively short page, so I can copy and paste ALL the text on the entire page right here:

Islaamic ruling regarding the Qaadiyaaniyyah Please appropriately reference this fatwa to: www.fatwa-online.com, thankyou!* Question: We request your explanation about the Islaamic ruling regarding the Qaadiyaaniyyah group, and their self-procalimed "prophet" Ghulaam Ahmad al-Qaadiyaanee. We also request you send us some books which have researched this group since I am concerned in studying them?
Response: The prophethood was completed by our prophet Muhammad (sal-Allaahu `alayhe wa sallam) so there is no prophet after him, for that which is confirmed in the Book and the Sunnah. So whoever claims prophethood after this, then he is a liar. And from amongst these (claimants) is Ghulaam Ahmad al-Qaadiyaanee. So his call of prophethood for himself is a lie, and that which the Qaadiyaaniyoon (his followers) claim of his prophethood, then this claim is false.
And the judgement of the Council of Senior Scholars of Saudi Arabia was passed regarding the Qaadiyaaniyyoon, that they were a kaafir sect because of their beliefs.
And with Allaah lies all success and may Allaah send prayers and salutations upon our Prophet (sal-Allaahu `alayhe wa sallam) and his family and his companions.
The Permanent Committee for Islaamic Research and Fataawa, comprising -
Head: Shaykh 'Abdul 'Azeez Ibn Abdullaah Ibn Baaz;
Deputy Head: Shaykh 'Abdur-Razzaaq 'Afeefee;
Member: Shaykh 'Abdullaah Ibn Ghudayyaan;
Member: Shaykh 'Abdullaah Ibn Qu'ood
Fataawa al-Lajnah ad-Daa.imah lil-Buhooth al-'Ilmiyyah wal-Iftaa., - Volume 2, Page 313, Fatwa No.4317

So clearly he was not talking about the Qadiriyyah, but rather the Qadyani, more commonly referred to as the Ahmadiyya, a group which virtually all mainstream Muslims consider to be a separate religion entirely. Not only were you wrong about the group he was talking about, but you also failed to prove how this is controversial at all. Your second claim, that Bin Baz declared Shia's not to be Muslims, was cited with this reference. Once again, it's a short page so I can post the entire text here:

The Islaamic ruling regarding (Ayatollah) Khomeini Please appropriately reference this fatwa to: www.fatwa-online.com, thankyou!* Question: What is the Islaamic ruling regarding (Ayatollah) Khomeini?
Response: Khomeini has a book in which he mentions the excellence of the Imaams (Hassan and Hussein et al) of the family of the Prophet (sal-Allaahu `alayhe wa sallam) over and above the Prophets and the Messengers (`alayhim as-salaam); (So) based upon this (statement of his) he is not a Muslim.
Shaykh al-Albaanee
al-Haawee min Fataawa ash-Shaykh al-Albaanee – Page 349

Wow, just...wow. Nowhere at all does he say anything about Shia or Shi'ism on that page. At all. Period. He was only talking about Khomeini specifically. I honestly don't see how that could have been any sort of mistake on your part; the word Shia doesn't even appear on that page once. Furthermore, the ruling was not made by Bin Baz, but by Albani, so you didn't even get the person right.
Honestly, I don't know how you expect me to take you seriously at this point. I've tried to assume good faith with you - i've really, really tried. But not only have you tried to pass of a set of random opinions that you happen to disagree with as controversial with no backing for that claim whatsoever (proving he held those opinions DOES NOT prove that they're controversial), you seem to have very blatantly misquoted the man to the point where I don't see how it could have even been an honest mistake. As we are told in the Wikipedia:Assume good faith behavioral guideline:

This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include repeated vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying.

I really don't know what else to say about this whole mess. I've never seen dishonesty and misquoting so obviously teetering on the edge of the official Wikipedia:Libel policy. MezzoMezzo 02:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Answering Mezzo-Mezzo regarding the legitimacy of deleted contents

From Chubeat8:

Here you are quotted and answered:

a-``he didn't declare people who do dhikr and additional prayers to be polytheists and innovators, but rather just congregational dhikr that was made to people other than Allah``

Regardless if Dikr is to Allah or Adonay that does not matter. Those are Muslims who do Dikr regardless of its details that the controversial Sheikh declared politheists. So are you speaking against yourselfhere.

b- ``just Sufis who make statements such as the above. You were also making this statement out to be much more broad than it really is.``

Sorry but here either you or the Shaikh do not know about Suffism. All Suffis make such statements and let us not fool around with that. Give one Suffi sect that does not do such!! where is your proof!

c- ``Islaamic ruling regarding the Qaadiyaaniyyah Please appropriately``

You are right in correcting the mistake. Qadiriya is wrong, Qaadiyaniya is right. Bottom line Qaadianists are Muslims that the Sheikh considers Kafir. See your link please!

d- ``Khomeini has a book in which he mentions the excellence of the Imaams (Hassan and Hussein et al) of the family of the Prophet (sal-Allaahu `alayhe wa sallam) over and above the Prophets and the Messengers (`alayhim as-salaam); (So) based upon this (statement of his) he is not a Muslim`` you also said: ``Wow, just...wow. Nowhere at all does he say anything about Shia or Shi'ism``

Here you make the evidence of not knowing what Shiism is all about. That statement refered to as Khomeini`s is a Shia belief. All Sheites believe that Imams are better then all prophets except Muhamad because he -Muhamad- himself was Imam. See aqaed.com and also najaf.org for example to see what Ayatollah Sistani says in that respect. So you prove to be not knowing what you are talking about. The Sheikh Bin Baz declaring knomeini Kafir just because he considers the Imams better the prophets is enough to say that the Sheikh considers the Shiite as Kafirs aswell. The good example: ( for that is to say I believe because Jack says god is one he is terrorists, that is enough for me to quote you as considering whoever says god is one as terrorist.) so the idea is clear and again you turned around it like usual.

e: ``good faith include repeated vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying``

This, I leave it up to the administrator and wiki regulation to decide, I will accept their decision if I am here vandalizing or struggeling to make a case in a monoplozid one sided article.

f- ``really don't know what else to say about this whole mess. I've never seen dishonesty and misquoting so obviously ``

at least my effort has liberated this article from being the official copy and paste website of Sheikh bin baz Da`wa members. The rest of accusations are refused. The good faith is what we have. I hope there going to be more discussions and better more contributions. Chubeat8

Point by point, eh? Okay, i'll play your game. This should be fun.

Response to Point A: I am not speaking against myself here, I am speaking against you. Your edit said, as I pointed out above, that Bin Baz declares any Muslims who do dhikr and additional prayers to be polytheists and innovators. He did not say Muslims who do dhikr and extra prayers are polytheists and innovators; he said that Muslims who do a specific type of dhikr and a specific type of additional prayers specified in his letter to be so. He made a specific statement, you claimed it to be general. There is no way for you to argue your way out of this. You misquoted him, not to mention the fact that you failed to prove how this was controversial.

Response to Point B: Not all Sufis make such statements. You're the one making this claim, and so the Burden of proof lies on you. Either way it doesn't matter because again the guy never said in the cited reference that he was referring to all Sufis; this is merely your opinion and to put it in the article is a blatant violation of the official Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy and the official Wikipedia:No original research policy.

Response to Point C: Yes, I know that's what he said, I was the one that was proving it to you. The link only proves that he made the ruling; it DOES NOT prove that his doing so was controversial. Again, just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it controversial and to insert it into the article would be a violation of the official Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy.

Response to Point D: No, him saying that IS NOT enough to say that he considers all Shia to not be Muslims, because he DID NOT SAY that he doesn't consider all Shia Muslims in the link. To claim that is does is not only misquoting and a violation of the official [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy, but also a violation of the official Wikipedia:No original research policy.

Response to Point E: Your accusation that I am monopolizing the article simply by defending it from blatant violates of official Wikipedia policy is dubious at best.

Response to Point F: Actually, your effort hasn't changed this article at all. All of your edits were disruptive, inappropriate, and in violation of various official Wikipedia policies. If you check the article's history, all the additions of references and valuable information during this whole dispute were added by me. Thanks for trying, though.

By the way, you keep talking about notifying administrator's. Are you actually going to do it or what? You keep waving that around as some sort of a threat - despite, of course, the fact that I welcome it as it would reveal the full extent of the problems you have caused. Just seems kind of funny to me. MezzoMezzo 04:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

One example of the Sheikh`s Takfiri and controvesial nature everyreader knows about.

See, user Mezzo-Mezzo does not dear to delete this Fatwa of Ibn Baz on the section controversy :The earth is flat. Whoever claims it is round is an atheist deserving of punishment`` If this man issues a religious decree stating that if you believe the earth is round you are to be punished and you are etheist!!! in other words you are non Muslim (unless there are etheist Muslims that Mezzo may come up with in his usual apologistic comments..if you believe the earth is not flat or square or round or even flat in a different way, you are non-Mulsim declared by Mr Ibn Baaz. So Mezzo is coming here to tell me that Shiites and Suffis who are Muslims who radically see god different that Mr Ibn Baaz, the later considers them Muslims. What a joke Mezzo, this whole mess up with this acticle must be stopped and the administrator must have a say in this..All the time this article was here Mezzo did not notice it was copied and pasted from Ibn Baaz Saudi based webpage. Just after criticism begun, Mezzo became a source finder and verificator!! I can not buy your honesty Mezzo. We will see you on Albaani as well.

Chubeat8

I didn't delete it because it is properly sourced. If you hadn't noticed, the entire recurring theme here is that an addition to the article is acceptable if it is accompanied with proof. Yes, his words there were controversial, and there are references to prove it, that's why it should stay. Your edits, however, did not have any proof that they caused any controversy.

As for Shia or Sufis being radically different, I never said that and you are now lying about my comments and putting words in my mouth. I was pointing out what Bin Baz said, not making a statement myself. There is not much more I need to say here - anyone can read my comments above and see that I did not say what you're claiming I said.

As for one section being copy pasted from a website that hasn't been updated regularly in four years, I didn't check the site. What exactly is your point? Is that supposed to be evidence that I shouldn't be editing? I am not sure what you're saying here. As for me coming in after your edits, Wikipedia is free for everyone to edit; I can choose to edit whenever I want to and there is nothing dishonest about that. Please check the official Wikipedia:Ownership of articles policy; you are not the only one allowed to edit this article. MezzoMezzo 03:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

it was said

We will see you on Albaani as well

and I will be there User:al-Boriqee

Mezzo`s argument not holding together

A- Mezzo said: ``specific type of dhikr and a specific type of additional prayers specified in his letter to be so.``

Our challenge to him is this. Please show us any Fatwa where Ibn Baz considers Muslims who do Dikr as Ok and as Muslims. KNowing that Dikr in the Suffi world is something that does not exist with original Islamic orthopraxy. There for specific Dikf for Bin Baz means all Dikr other than what Prohpet Muhammad did (Quran recitation, the five prayers). The rest according to him is Specific Dikr (inovated by Suffis) by specific people (Suffis). we challenge you to state here any Dikr as example permitted by Ibn Baaz that Suffis do! of course other than Quran recitation and 5 prayers plus Chaf3 and Witr..!!

B- Mezzo said:``The link only proves that he made the ruling; it DOES NOT prove that his doing so was controversial``

Ok, fine, if you find that not controversial in classification and knowing that that is not agreed up on the least in Muslim world, never mind the west. Then why not putting those pragraphs not under Controversy, but under opinion! we need to show Ibn Baaz opinions! what is the fear from!!

F: ``your effort hasn't changed this article at all. All of your edits were disruptive, inappropriate, and in violation of various official Wikipedia policies. If you check the article's ``

aah..and that is why you kept the paragraph on Succession!! you pick and chose..don`t you. Birthsay celebration is prohibited by this Sheikh with copy of the fatwa, removed..wow..why, put it under opinions..I will research on a lot of staff including how the Sheikh sees women..and I will put it there and again you remove it , an other debate starts untill the administrator does something. Or may be you see it in the Journals here in North America..His opinions will be unveiled regardless you effort of falsification of character.. Chubeat8

First man, you need to stop creating a new section every time you leave a comment. It's not necessary and makes the page look bloated. Indent and post underneath my comments, it's not very hard. Also, you need to start signing your comments properly.

Response to Point A: Your challenge is ridiculous because you are making a claim and asking me to disprove it. Did you even read the page on Burden of proof? I'm not posting it for no reason. If you want to claim that he doesn't consider any Muslim who performs dhikr to be ok then YOU need to back up your claim, because the reference cited certainly doesn't confirm that; it just says, as I pointed out, that Bin Baz opposes the specific type of dhikr mentioned in the source. Also, furthermore, you need to prove how this is controversial at all if it is to be included in the article.

Response to Point B: You claim it is not agreed upon the least in the Muslim world, yet you again fail to back up that claim. That's just your opinion; not fact. For you to edit this article based on that opinion is a flagrant violation of the official Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I am not posting this link just to post it; I want you to READ it and understand why your argument here is baseless. As for simply posting his opinions, this was already explained to you: it is not relevant to the article is this is a biography of the man, not a quotefarm for every comment he ever made. PLEASE READ the Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles page in the manual of style. The article is already an accurate biography of the man, an entire section for some of the literally hundreds and hundreds of fatwas he made simply for the sake of including them is irresponsible and doesn't improve the article beyond what it is now.

Response to Point F: Once again, you need to review the official Wikipedia:Ownership of articles policy. As I have already explained to you my strong opposition to your ruining of the article through turning it into a quotefarm for all his opinions, you have absolutely no place whatsoever to declare flat out that you will be including these things in the article irrespective of input from other editors. READ THE ABOVE LINK, YOU DO NOT OWN THIS PAGE. Your section on Succession was helpful, i'll give you that. That's why it could stay: it improved upon the article and no one is opposed to it. If you're trying to insert blatantly POV material that is poorly sourced and detrimental to the article then you need to cease that now. I can see from the fact that you only recently learned how to format references, create overly long section titled for new sections every time you reply, constantly edit without signing in and then sign your comments improperly that you're relatively new to Wikipedia, which is fine. We all had to start somewhere. But if you constantly refuse to abide by official site policy as you have done here you are not destined to last very long.

If you think you're making any valid points by demanding I disprove your wild assertions and stating that you will damage this article regardless of opposition from other editors is going to get you anywhere then you are sadly mistaken. I'm not going anywhere, and i'm not going to let you vandalize this article with your misinformation and inaccuracies any further.

Also, one last thing: READ the official Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy. Don't just click on it once, READ IT. You don't appear to be reading or abiding by any of the official site policies i've been showing you, if you read any of them read that one. Your edits and the manner in which you seek to undertake them fly in the face of sections 2.2, 2.3, 2.8, 2.9, and 3.1 2.9 especially. Please read it and brush up on how things are done here. MezzoMezzo 14:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If I may make something clear, MezzoMezzo's argument seems to me undeniably sound. The burden of proof is certainly not on him, as it is well known that the Prophet (SallaAllaahu 'Alayhi wa-Sallam) said that the believer's tongue should be wet with the remembrance of Allaah 'Aza wa Jal. So Sheikh Bin Baaz would not classify such an obvious act of worship as an innovation, or unlawful. Again--I thank you for your dedication to accuracy and the upholding of this article's factualness, MezzoMezzo. Bu Seif

Chubeat8 user support log

I support the arguments made by Chubeat8. I only ask him, before editing, that he quotes the exact reference wording. Although he made valid points, the way he quotes references does not respond to wikipedia criteria. I must STRESS though here that a lot of his materials are well-quotted and therefore I support them being put back. i.e: Birhday banning issue and an old entry regarding this Shaikh's banning of Muslims to immigrate in non-Muslims lands. These 2 elements are very valid and need to be put back. User Mezzo-Mezzo unfortunatly uses the right word for the bad purpose. In fact Chubeat8 in my analysis uses the bad words for the good purpose. This article the way it is now is in no way, shape or form neutral. Based on previously red notes, I conclude that this is a disputed article and remains disputed. This is in response for editor Chubeat8 request that those who share the views with him, must display that in the discussion section. I recomand not adding more titles and this should be for Chubeat8 supports to make their arument. Mezzo-Mezzo argument supporters may have their own header and the administrator should creat a POV archive on Ibn Baz.uss-cool

I added some of the valid points originating from Chubeat8 under section opinions. They were added in a fashion that makes the opinion displays itself rather then anyone else displaying it. Those are strictly opinions expressed by Shaikh Ibn Baz. Added to his article. It is the job of the reader to think freely if they controversial or sound. Because that is not our job to classify them. From now on Chubeat8, try not to put yourself in the addons. Put what the Shaikh said for example or did and back it by identical references. If not, than Mezzo-Mezzo is here to just do the scan. user: Swapant

You did not gain a consensus before doing this edit and therefore it shall be removed. As you know, my position is that a bunch of random opinions from him is not relevant - seeing as how you know that, it was wildly inappropriate for you to add them into the article anyway. Please abide by the official Wikipedia:Consensus policy. MezzoMezzo 22:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

so remove his opinion about the oslo peace accord and about bin laden!! go ahead and also remove the random opinions about flat earth and just have his official web site from saudi arabia here. This page is purely monopolized by certain individuals..no academic value what so ever. Concensus, I like that..user: Swapant

Clearly you have failed to actually read the Wikipedia:Consensus page; please do so before responding. As far as the opinions on the Oslo Peace Accord and Bin Laden and flat earth, those are not under dispute as their controversial nature is proven and agreed upon. Your edits aren't agreed upon and inserting them despite opposition from others is no an effective way to resolve disputes. Also, keep in mind from official Wikipedia policy that:

Consensus in many debates and discussions is not based upon number of votes, but upon policy-related points made by editors.

As for me monopolizing this article, where is your proof? Have you read the sheer amount of official site policy i've tossed your way? If you did, you would understand why I am protecting this article from you. This is not monopolizing, but rather upholding correct policy procedures; please read the Community section under the official Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy and you'll understand. MezzoMezzo 22:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

to those new apparently single purpose accounts (assumedly not sockpuppets) that are frequenting this page: please ensure that whatever insertions you make are sourced to a reliable secondary source. if you believe there is something about Ibn Baz that is worth mentioning, provide a secondary source demonstrating it is of note. selective representation of views because one personally finds them 'controversial' is not neutral and not welcome. thank you. ITAQALLAH 00:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this onslaught of single-minded new users is very suspicious. Chubeat8, I have a question: how do you suppose all these people suddenly found this article? Are they associates of yours?Proabivouac 05:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

---

They found this article just like your associates or co-leagues in opinion did. user:Chubeat8

---

USER: ITAQALLAH! YOU PLAY SMART TRYING TO FOOL PEOPLE HERE. DO NOT DELETE CONTRIBUTION AND ARGUMENTS IN THIS AREA. IT IS CALLED DISCUSSION. WE KNOW SOMEPEOPLE HATE TO DISCUSS AND THAT WHY THEY ARE CONTROVERSIAL. SO BRING YOUR PAPERS ON THE TABLE AT LEAST LIKE MEZZO-MEZZO. MEZZO-MEZZO IS SOMETIMES RIGHT, SOMETIMES WRONG, BUT AT LEAST HE MAKES SOME POINTS AND WHERE HE IS RIGHTS AND ADMITS WHERE HE IS WRONG AND HE IS NOT IMPOLITE TO THE DEGEE WHERE HE LOGS IN TO DELETE PEOPLE'S ARGUMENT IN THE DISCUSSION AREA. DO NOT DO IT AGAIN OK! BE GOOD..KAWAKIBI

---

khomeini is known to the earth planet inhabitants as Muslim, Ibn Baz says he is Not Muslim. Relevent piece added. wikipedia 101 should allow one to understand deleting this means a disaster..) in case missing Chubeat8. we have to agree on this one at least guys..then the debate will improve..

---

This debate is very healthy in shaping a great article. Parties are adiviced to use common sense. In any case, unless the recent debate since someone started the controversial fatwa hint, this article would be very dry. I definitely see a progress through this debate. Both or all of you, keep the debate going and keep the best selected and justified contributions growing in the article because frankly, the page before you print it you get one page that by skipping the line and no vibration in it..now the article is becoming more and more neutral and dynamic..keep up. KAWAKIBI

Defining Controversy

``A controversy or dispute is a matter of opinion over which parties actively disagree, argue, or debate. Controversies can range in size from private disputes between two individuals to large-scale disagreements between societies.

Perennial areas of controversy include religion, philosophy and politics.`` Now Given that Ibn Baz declared Khomeini Not a Mulslim, and given thatKhomeini is a leading Muslim feagure, this makes it enough to add his Takfir Fatwa on Khomeini in the section of controversy. Nevertheless, Mezzo-Mezzo will say it is not controversial. May be in an other planet but in Wikipedia, it is a controversy. Again, The principle of being Neutral in Wikipedia overide the concensus. In other words, one can not sometime some article and if no one know about it it becomes good!! this is not the blue cheese I guess -Samneh- soItaqallah and just be fair. This is an insult to the Sheikh not to show what he says. Bottom line he had a view and it was controversial. Worst, he could be wrong or maybe right..but that has been said.

Chubeat8

---

that is your own original research as to what is or isn't controversial about Bin Baz. it seems you wish to select particular opinions you personally believe are worth mentioning or even "controversy". you need to verify your claim of controversy or notability with respect to the information you wish to insert from a reliable source. thanks. ITAQALLAH 16:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

That is indeed original research. As was said before, simply proving that he said it does not prove that it is controversial. Since no new argument or information has been presented, there is nothing else to say. Please provide evidence (and your own personal opinion is not evidence) that the statement caused controversy or it SHALL NOT be allowed in the article. MezzoMezzo 03:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Chubeat8, everyone here is telling you that we need a reliable secondary source stating that this is controversial.Proabivouac 05:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Oh please, Muslims calling other Muslims non-Muslim you call it not controversial!!!!!what is it then, crazy people!! !!

The weakness of your argument is showing. I'm not calling it anything. As for it being controversial, you've shown multiple times that in your opinion it is. What you have been asked for multiple times is a secondary source proving that the statement is controversial or even notable. Your own personal opinion is not a valid source; to make your additions to the article based on it is a violation of both the official Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:No original research policies. This has been explained to you more than once. You still have yet to add anything new to the discussion beyond your own personal opinions. Until you can bring proof, your edits WILL NOT be allowed to the article. More users have caught on to what you're doing now, so continuing your edit war will get you nowhere. MezzoMezzo 20:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

2 and a half page article that has a 25 pages debate section!!

This article of two and half pages caused a 25 pages debate. Rooughly because some elements do not want it diversified. I noticed that some contributors like user: Itaqallah speak no logic and even erase other people input on the talk page. Not only that, the user talks about primary and secondary sources!!as if this is an original research. What a redicule. The best way is to present the facts and the said by the subject and may be provide explanations from subsequent saying from the subject like they did in his Fatwa that he reversed about the deployment of foreigners. If not, then obviously the two and a half pages copy and paste from the subject official Saudi page will not worth a bus ticket in terms of academic value. That is to say, it gets you no where and in fact it back fires against the subject. People may find answers in Wikipedia, but if the the questions raise from its articles, Wikipedia loses the half time where the reader will look for the answers elsewhere. User: Swapant

Please review the official Wikipedia:No personal attacks. While you are entitled to your opinion about Itaqallah, myself, or any other user insults and personal remarks are not allowed. Also, as I said before, the page that ONE SECTION was copy pasted from - and I did correct that already - is not Bin Baz's official page. Not only does it seem that you aren't reading my comments here but also my edits and corrections to the article. Since you have not provided any new information or relevant defense of your edits here - insults and venting are not evidence of anything - your edits shall not be allowed, unless you do make a relevant defense and/or bring some valid secondary sources. MezzoMezzo 03:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

one example of users inserting their opinions!!!

look at this:

"" Shaikh ibn Baaz first developed notoriety and a reputation for integrity in the 1940s when he served time in prison as punishment for contradicting government policy with a fatwa declaring the employment of non-Muslims in the Persian Gulf forbidden by Islam. Ironically, roughly fifty years later, in a seeming reversal, he issued another fatwa allowing the deployment of non-Muslim troops on Saudi Arabian soil to defend the Kingdom from the Iraqi army.

????????????????His reasoning: if the defense of the kingdom was left to Muslims, it would be the khawaarij who would no doubt take control, and the average Saudi citizen would have difficulty differentiating between the orthodox Salafee creed with that of the former. However, if the job were given to the non-Muslims, such confusion would be non-existent.??????????????? ""

Now if you look at the added material in the second paragraph by users totally approved by persons like Mezzo-Mezzo whom the later never question. You find the Shaikh issuing a Fatwa, after that he himself revered the Fatwa, yet, some one here may be close family member is trying to explain to us the reasoning behind the Shaikh mind change!! common, let us know where you get that baggage from..or leave things as they are..User Swapant

Once again, I am warning you not to launch personal attacks. You do not know me and you can't read minds so you don't know what I do or don't approve of. I have a life outside of Wikipedia and don't spend all of my time monitoring every addition to this article. If this was some sort of attempt by you to discredit me then you have failed miserably. You have also failed to make any relevant points whatsoever. MezzoMezzo 03:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that Swapant user is right and Mezzo-Mezzo who seem to devoted to this article rushing back and forth to keep as it was : The copy and paste of the Official Page of Ibn Baz based in Saudia Arabia backed by some out side Tablighi -IslamiST missionary or Islamist globalization website- Now Mezzo-Mezzo is running away to hide behind things like personal attacks and wiki conscesus and his supporter second half ITAQALLAh is covering him up and even suggesting the deletion of modt of the article. I think that the original user who introduced the fatwa section is to be given a great credit. This not a preaching post folks. Your deeds are revealed and your missionary paged evaluated, visited and even printed in some parts. So no matter what you do with future deletion etc..we have the proof that some body, pretending to be a wiki freedom fighter was using wikipedia to pass Islamist agenda. That person(s) know himself and we have his editions achived giving concensus to info linked to the said Islamist source. User:Shubeat8

---

Look at this one again:

Flat earth alegations Shaikh ibn Baaz is best known in the West from a report claiming he issued a fatwa declaring: "The earth is flat. Whoever claims it is round is an atheist deserving of punishment."[13] He described this flat earth-report as "a pure lie"[14].

??????????/Several Muslim leaders argued that, in fact, he maintained not that the Earth is flat but that it is a stationary globe that the sun and moon revolve around, using Quranic literalism as evidence. (Discussion of the issues can be found in Flat Earth theories).??????????

Again, someone is trying to speak against the reality, the said by the Shaikh..Mezzo-Mezzo was always happy with this kind of Non-sense, and only interested in removing our referenced sections. Things can not be revealed more than that..it is obvious this artcle was a way to reflect official Saudi stand point. user: Swapant

That comments is referenced if you would actually follow the Wiki-link. Considering that Bin Baz did say that, and there is proof that he did, I don't see what your issue is. You're free to disagree with Bin Baz but that isn't a green light for you to delete anything in this article that doesn't jive with your view. MezzoMezzo 03:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Look at thsi example once again:

When Shaikh ibn Baaz died in 1999 the loss of "his erudition and reputation for intransigence" was so great the Saudi government was said to have "found itself staring into a vacuum" unable to find a figure able to "fill bin Baaz's shoes."[15] ??????????His influence on the Salafi movement was large, and most of the prominent judges and religious scholars of Saudi Arabia today are former students of his.????????????

Where does this bagage come from, no source no example..yet, Watchers like mentioned above seem happy with that and use wikipedia rules for the wrong purpose. User: Swapant

i think the whole controversy section should be removed unless we have reliable secondary sources actually asserting controversy. ITAQALLAH 01:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

That comment is referenced. And Itaqallah does make an interesting point. This would be a chance for Swampant/Chubeat8/uss-cool/kwalakibi/whoever you are to find some relevant secondary sources and bring something positive to the article. MezzoMezzo 03:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Clarifying distorted allegations about Bin Baz

Firstly, and foremost, Many fo the arguements raised against mezzomezzo are half way linked to any real context. much of it is distorted which is why this section is being added to clear up some of these misconstrued matters.

it was said

"Our challenge to him is this. Please show us any Fatwa where Ibn Baz considers Muslims who do Dikr as Ok and as Muslims. KNowing that Dikr in the Suffi world is something that does not exist with original Islamic orthopraxy. There for specific Dikf for Bin Baz means all Dikr other than what Prohpet Muhammad did (Quran recitation, the five prayers). The rest according to him is Specific Dikr (inovated by Suffis) by specific people (Suffis). we challenge you to state here any Dikr as example permitted by Ibn Baaz that Suffis do! of course other than Quran recitation and 5 prayers plus Chaf3 and Witr..!!"

regarding the first wish

هل هناك أدعية وأذكار ليوم الجمعة، وأخرى ليوم السبت

Question:

There are some books which specifically mention Supplications and Adhkaar (words of remembrance) reported from the Messenger of Allaah (صلى الله عليه وسلم), from them, for example, a book entitled “Ad-Duaa al-Mustajaab” in it are found supplications for every day of the week. There are Supplications and Adhkaar for Friday (Jumu’ah) and others for Saturday and the likes, so is adhering to these Adhkaar from innovation or are they from the Sunnah? هناك بعض الكتب الخاصة بالأذكار والأدعية الواردة عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم منها مثلا كتاب " الدعاء المستجاب" وقد وجدت فيه أدعية لكل يوم من أيام الأسبوع ، فهناك أدعية وأذكار ليوم الجمعة، وأخرى ليوم السبت، وهكذا . فهل الالتزام بهذه الأذكار بدعة أم هو من السنة؟

Answer:

This book is not depended upon and its author is a Haatibul-Layl [1] one who gathers together the corrupt and despicable with the good and fine; and the saheeh (authentic), the Da’eef (weak) and the Mawdoo’ (fabricated) [narrations altogether]. Hence it is not to be relied upon. And it is not permissible to single out any day or any night with anything except with evidence from al-Ma’soom (the infallible) (عليه الصلاة والسلام). So this book is not relied upon. Rather you should have recourse to other books, since that which is firmly established from the Messenger of Allaah (عليه الصلاة والسلام) from the Adhkaar and supplications that are mentioned in the morning and evening, then that is legislated, and that which is not [established] then its not [legislated]. As for the book “Ad-Duaa al-Mustajaab” then it is not relied upon since its author is not worthy of that, as we have mentioned that he gathers together the corrupt and despicable with the good and fine; and the saheeh (authentic), the Da’eef (weak) and the Mawdoo (fabricated) [narrations altogether]. Indeed we have written with regards to that [i.e authentic supplications and adhkaar] a small treatise which we have entitled “Tuhfatul-Akhyaar bimaa Sahha min ad-D’iyyah wal-Adhkaar” so refer to it if you wish.

هذا كتاب غير معتمد، وصاحبه حاطب ليل يجمع الغث والسمين، والصحيح والضعيف والموضوع فلا يعتمد عليه، ولا يجوز أن يخصص أي يوم أو أي ليلة بشيء إلا بدليل عن المعصوم عليه الصلاة والسلام. فهذا الكتاب لا يعتمد عليه، ولكن تراجع الكتب الأخرى فما ثبت عن رسول الله عليه الصلاة والسلام من أذكار أو أدعية تقال في الصباح أو المساء شرع ذلك، وما لا فلا.

وأما كتاب: "الدعاء المستجاب" فلا يعتمد عليه؟ لأن صاحبه ليس بأهل لذلك؟ لأنه كما قلنا يجمع بين الغث والسمين، والصحيح والضعيف والموضوع. وقد كتبنا في ذلك رسالة سميناها: "تحفة الأخيار بما صح من الأدعية والأذكار" فراجعها إن شئت.

الشيخ عبدالعزيز بن عبدالله بن باز

فتاوى نور على الدرب

So Yes Bin Baz still considered the one hwo performs dhikr, even in the innovated way that sufis tariqas practice as still muslims. That is because the mutamid positon within the madhaab of the hanaabliha is that the negation of emaan from the heart of the servant is strictly upon calling to others alogn with Allah. As for dhikr, this is somethign that has roots in either the sunnah, or other than it, and as a result it can be at best a sunni practice or a bida practice. Never did he negate the Islam of one who may have fallen into certain bida practises, because in order for bida to remove one from t he fold ofg Islam, that bida has to be mukafara.

2. Secondly, there is no "knowing" that sufi dhikr has roots in Islamic orthopraxy. There are two main positions regarding the practice of dhikr 1. restricting it to the sunnah of whatever the prophet verbatimly said 2. Those who brought into Islam adhkaar, for example, an-Nawawi's adkhaar.

The majority of people who follow the first is ahlul-hadeeth cholars, mainly form the hanaabliah who took on the hanbali asl "All worldly affairs is halaal unless there is a text prohibiting it and ALL religious worship (ibaadah) is prohibited unless there is a texts allowing for it.

Those who take on the second positon are most, if not all, the sufis groups and SOME scholars of the ahlu-sunnah i.e. an-Nawawee.

however, the defining criteria which brings support to either side always in Islam is "whatever the pious predecessors" have performed. If the salaf did not do it, then it cannot be considered Islam. Thus the evidence supported by the people who took the firs position are the clear proofs of the salaf's lack of performing such worship that was never legislated by the prophet. The people who took on board the second position only do so finding support through ijtihaad at best. Thus ijtihaad, when conflicting with source texts, is overided, thus the first position rules out he second regardless if a handful of sunni scholars have taken on such a position.

3. And lastly

when it was said

"We challenge you to state here any Dikr as example permitted by Ibn Baaz that Suffis do! of course other than Quran recitation and 5 prayers plus Chaf3 and Witr..!"

I say that can't literally, much less, logically happen.Because there is nothing that Bin Baz permits that Sufis do EXCEPT whatever was stated in the two sources. Hence you are requiring something from someone that can't possibly add up and can't happen

Regarding the Flat Earth Stance

it was said

" See, user Mezzo-Mezzo does not dear to delete this Fatwa of Ibn Baz on the section controversy :The earth is flat. Whoever claims it is round is an atheist deserving of punishment`` If this man issues a religious decree stating that if you believe the earth is round you are to be punished and you are etheist!!! in other words you are non Muslim (unless there are etheist Muslims that Mezzo may come up with in his usual apologistic comments..if you believe the earth is not flat or square or round or even flat in a different way, you are non-Mulsim declared by Mr Ibn Baaz. So Mezzo is coming here to tell me that Shiites and Suffis who are Muslims who radically see god different that Mr Ibn Baaz, the later considers them Muslims. What a joke Mezzo, this whole mess up with this acticle must be stopped and the administrator must have a say in this..All the time this article was here Mezzo did not notice it was copied and pasted from Ibn Baaz Saudi based webpage. Just after criticism begun, Mezzo became a source finder and verificator!! I can not buy your honesty Mezzo. We will see you on Albaani as well. "

The fatwa comes from a blind man. It is regarding his understanding of a particular ayaah he took literally, while other scholars have mentioned his error. He only made a general ruling on someone disbeleiving based on his understanding of that ayaah, and not that his udnerstanding of that yaah is the rock solid understanding ayaah in question. There is a myriad of other scholars in our islamic history who have made such blunders, (of course by default of being human) and have made takfeer of those who deny what they ruled upon. Thus your single handedly singling him out for something neaqrly every other schoalr in Islamic history has done is nothing less than bigotry

It was errnorneously stated

"Regardless if Dikr is to Allah or Adonay that does not matter. Those are Muslims who do Dikr regardless of its details that the controversial Sheikh declared politheists. So are you speaking against yourselfhere."

It does matter. Islam is "worship to Allah" Polytheism is "worship to other than Allah"

According to what you said than anyone who does shikr is a muslim. This is like the irj'aa of Jahm ibn Safwaan who only n egated emaan (faith) from a person only if they did not know Allah. That means, chrsitians, jews, budhists, and every other disbeleiving nation is considered muslim, and according to this statement, you have congruity to Jahm's creed.

It was said

"You are right in correcting the mistake. Qadiriya is wrong, Qaadiyaniya is right. Bottom line Qaadianists are Muslims that the Sheikh considers Kafir. See your link please!"

who told you that. The entire Islamic nation, salafi,ash'ari,sufi, and every other group gathered in one fo the islamic ocuntries specficially dispensing a ruling on the qadianiyyah. It is unanimous agreement, from all hersiological groups that the qadiyanniyah areo ut the fold of Islam.

it was correctly said

"The Sheikh Bin Baz declaring knomeini Kafir just because he considers the Imams better the prophets is enough to say that the Sheikh considers the Shiite as Kafirs aswell"

in this you are right, and it woul;d have been wrogn for Mezzo to say opposite of this. BInbaz, along with a myriad of other schoalrs, be they salafi or not, all considered the leaders of the shi'aa as kuffar, and that the commoners to be merely dhaal (misguided) and that proof of kufr has to be shown to such a commoner before the ruling of kufr be applied.

it was said

"From Chubeat8: Mezzo, you are very questionable. Who in the world does not find banning birthday celebration not controversial"

The non muslim world. Not the muslim world. But since your speaking on behalf of Islam, then likewise if it is not contraversial for muslims, it should be contraversial for one who prefesses islam like yourself, unless of course such people who prefess islam fall under the prophetic tradition which was sided earlier

"My Ummah would follow the kuffaar (i.e. Jews and Christians) step-by-step; so much so that if they entered a lizard's hole we would enter it right after them."

and lastly, it is of no consequence whether his views be expressed in public rather those who accept his dawah would appreciate it. Just remember that whatever views he expresses that is contaminated with the contaimants of his opposers, there will be those who will decrypt whatever fundamental errors come from what opposition the shaykh had thus the reality of his beleif made clear for all to see.

Clarifying the last Clarifications

1- Very good point raised in the last insertion about the issue of Takfir. The user uses evidence as already verified from Ibn Baaz Fatwas that he does not declare non-Muslim those who do other kinds of supplications and prayers and Dikr that is not authentic for him. Now why we maintain that Ibn Baz considers Suffis and Shias non Muslims! here is why:

a.Suffis call on people for help in their Adkar. Example: Madad Mada Ya Rasulallah or Madada madad Ya Ali. Same for Shia sayying: Ya husayn. In brief, they believe that they can call for those person -dead- to help them. That is already calling on other than Allah. For Ibn Baz, calling other than Allah is Polytheism and of course Polytheism is not Tahid-Monotheism- that makes Suffis and Shias Kafirs.

b. an other example, Ibn Baz declared Khomeini as Kafir because he believe Imams are better than prophets. All Shias including their leading most prominent Marjaas have the same belief. Doesn`t that make them Kafit in the eyes of Ibn Baz!!!!

2- On Flat earth, here you legitilmize our claim that he said what he said. Stating that is no singling out. When I started this discussion it was there already anyways..

I like your last insertion. Keep the dialogue going User:Chubeat8

You literally just proved to everyone that you're performing original research. Your comments contained absolutely no secondary sources, only your own personal opinions. Your own personal deduction from the primary source IS original research. That's a textbook-like definition of it. Thank you for proving yourself wrong here. Multiple users have brought this to your attention and you just confirmed it here. This addition to the article shall be removed. MezzoMezzo 20:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

---

here is an example of MezzoMezzo lying about me. In the article, section Ayatollah Khomeini which I helped maintaining; I said that Ibn Baz considers Khomeini Kafir. Here is the proof of what Ibn Baz has said: ``The Islaamic ruling regarding (Ayatollah) Khomeini

• Please appropriately reference this fatwa to: www.fatwa-online.com, thankyou!*

Question: What is the Islaamic ruling regarding (Ayatollah) Khomeini?

Response: Khomeini has a book in which he mentions the excellence of the Imaams (Hassan and Hussein et al) of the family of the Prophet (sal-Allaahu `alayhe wa sallam) over and above the Prophets and the Messengers (`alayhim as-salaam); (So) based upon this (statement of his) he is not a Muslim.

Shaykh al-Albaanee al-Haawee min Fataawa ash-Shaykh al-Albaanee – Page 349``

You call this original research! :-) how funny! oooooh I forgot to sign sorry!! user:chubeat8

It was said

"a.Suffis call on people for help in their Adkar. Example: Madad Mada Ya Rasulallah or Madada madad Ya Ali. Same for Shia sayying: Ya husayn. In brief, they believe that they can call for those person -dead- to help them. That is already calling on other than Allah. For Ibn Baz, calling other than Allah is Polytheism and of course Polytheism is not Tahid-Monotheism- that makes Suffis and Shias Kafirs."

this is an incorrect analysis becauase the one who made this statement must have become unaware of the fact that regarding the principles of distributing fatwaa (rulings) particualrly regarding groups and individuals, then while in principle, it is a general beleif that such and such person holds that whoever (general) does something, is by default a disbeleiver, then this is a general ruling that does not apply specifically on any individual. The only time a ruling is fixed upon a particualrr individual or a group is upon analysis of their beleifs and principles.

so with regard to the shia, it is the general beleif of all sunnis, not just Bin Baz, that their beleif principlly is disbeleif, it quite different from any individual among the sunni nation to declare any particualry individual as a disbeleiver unl;ess detailed evidences are brought to such an individual and the removal of osbticles be performed (the rules for the removal of obsticles have been used in Islamic juristic rulings extracted from the prophetc tradition that obsticles include such as sanity, the lack of the age of awareness and understanding, confusion, and ignorance.)

As for the sufis, there are different branches of sufis, a myriad of views that all contribute to a spectrum inherent in the sufi theological system, and on that basis different sufi tariqas are of varying levels with regard to their congruity to the orthodox practice of Islam, some being marginally in error (according to orthodox Islam) and some being far worse in error (as deemed by traditional orthodox scholars). Thus is becaome an error for any side of people with reagrd to their partisan views to paint all sufis accross the board and such and such, particularly when no one sufi group fully agrees with another, many of whom declare others as heretics. user:al-boriqee

SOME USERS BASE ON ISLAMIC PROPAGANDA SITES TO SUPPORT THEIR ARGUMENTS

In the section on Osama Bin Laden, the contributor used a suspicious missionary onesided website as a reference. This should be deleted asap for its non-conformity with Wikipedia rules. PLease refer to: http://www.troid.org/articles/manhaj/

the center is called The center for the reign of Islamic preaching. KAWAKIBI—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.198.139.38 (talk • contribs)

thanks for pointing that out..please keep posting with us..Chubeat8—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.198.139.38 (talk • contribs)

IMPORTANT: THE REFERED TO WEBSITE WAS CLOSED AFTER MENTIONING IT HERE. IT IS NO LONGER ACCESSIBLE AND ALL RELATED MATERIALS SHOULD BE REMOVED..chubeat8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.198.139.38 (talk) 06:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The Troid website was down briefly for maintenance and has now been back up for weeks, so please stay on top of things. MezzoMezzo 14:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Here I can not understand how can this insertion be personal attack!!! This is a verified missionary by all startdars website. Instead of deleting you who argue otherwise, tell us what you think about this as a reference. We are waiting for courageous people to be in charge to answerus..user:Chubeat8I—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.198.139.38 (talk • contribs)

While the user is entitled to his own personal opinion about the Troid website, the fact that it professes to preach Islam does not violate any Wikipedia policies whatsoever. I find it funny that I have thrown what seems like half the official policies and guidelines this site has your way and not only do you ignore it, but you apparently failed to read them otherwise you would know that the link to Troid is legitimate. Claiming something violates rules is useless if you don't actually know them.

As for the insertion, it was a personal attack claiming that some other users were using propaganda. Again, while you are entitled to your own opinion personal insults aimed at other users is not acceptable. The user also does appear to be trolling. MezzoMezzo 20:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

---

aah, ok MezzoMezzo, so those who preach Shiism and criticize Ibn Baz do not violate wiki policies and therefore we may use them as source. you, then, have no right to reserve the right to use Sunnite preaching websites and at the same time refuse those well documented Shiites refrences. You , I think, have fallen in the mother of contradictions already. How can can you re-establish editting credibility. Preaching credibility, that I give you..Chubeat8

albrhan.org isn't a Hate site because it preaches Shiism. It's a hate site because it hurls around slurs like Nasibi at all Sunnis in general, which is prejudiced. Troid obviously is a Sunni site and while it expresses disagreement with other religious beliefs, it doesn't defame entire groups of people. Furthermore, it is only being used as a report of what Bin Baz actually said. albrhan.org, as I pointed out, blatantly misquotes both Bin Baz and Albani and even takes their audio lectures out of context. That's not a reliable source and it's sneaky to try to slip that by. MezzoMezzo 15:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

By Passer

Very hot discussion page. This will generate a lot of interesting participations. I take no sides, both make their arguments. Just to have both sides represented in the article the same way they are represented in discussion could be a great idea.

Jean-François Lafleure—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.198.139.38 (talk • contribs)

You just edited from the most frequent IP address that Chubeat8 always edits from when he's not logged in. I'm going to be a little more bold with this one, i'm calling BS on this. MezzoMezzo 20:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

This is one of the lamest attempts at puppetry I've ever seen. How many people do we have using this one IP?Proabivouac 20:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, you have the lamest attempt to preach The Reign Of Islam here in wikipedia..This public computer and people talk to each other..do not forget to add that this ine was not igned by the preceeding Blablabla .....Chubeat8

So how many people are in the room with you right now, discussing this situation?Proabivouac 22:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

My room is not public like Adult Breast Feeding in Wahabi Islam. See: http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21805283-663,00.html We do not do business in the rooms of Tora Bora like the Islamist Reign supporters do. We show our IP first and we put our arguments in the table after. Often we get lamed arguments and Zig-Zag citations of Islamist Dawa preachers like the one you inserted previously. Chubeat8

You just said you were at a public computer.Proabivouac 02:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

---

universities in north america are 24 hours unlike Saudia..are you logging from Saudia!! or Londonistan! never mind, what is important is that I will leave the aticle as you did it at your last contribution unders the condition that is remains flagged as disputed..you like it! tell me..chubeat8

I don't really see what a fatwa from Al Azhar has to do with this article, but it does show the malice behind your actions. And now you're accusing of of living in Saudia Arabia...why exactly? Because everyone who disagrees with you is a Wahhabi Saudi Arab who lives in London? That's offensive on so many levels, I don't even know how to address it. I think this is more than just POV and original research, it's starting to look like straight up vandalism. MezzoMezzo 15:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that Chubeat8 refered you to the wrong new source. Alazhar has nothing to do with Ibn Baz. Yet, Albany, influenced by Ibn Baz has authorized Adult Breastfeeding and someone earlier refered in Albany article to his voice recording on youtube stating so. So bottom line, Chubeat8 made the wrong reference in this issue, yet, it carries a truth. I see it more relevent to be added to Albany article than Ibn Baz. Swapant

Looks like you've found yet another IP address to edit from Swapant...also, I don't think anybody really believes you're a separate user from Chubeat8 anymore. Regardless, we already discussed the issues on the Albani page and, just like the issues here, there is no relevance or improvement to be gained by posting just one of the literally hundreds of rulings that the guy made. It adds nothing to the article and isn't notable. This has been explained to you multiple times. MezzoMezzo 19:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)