Talk:Abdul-Aziz Ibn Baz/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Strange indeed

Sorry guys if I have made some mistakes. At least this article with the discussion page has started to make sense. Now Mezzo-Mezzo and Esti-Mezza co-editor and others in connection with the internationalization of Wahabism through democracy and thru wikification, I am sure that, now I say your co-editors Mezzo-Mezzo and you will again hide behind rant like personal attack etc..here, you state none can believe I am not Swapant and what not, and other IP apologies etc..let us stick to the real debate.

The point is here. Some Da3wa editor stated that Bin Baz declared Ben Laden a Khariji in the section of controversy. From a Pro-Ben Baz preaching organization. Yet, you mind leaving the Fatwa against Khomeini!!!

Why stating Ben Laden!! to alianate Wahabism from Terrorism!! Not stating Khomeini!! because by sayying that about a philosopher, and statesman and Ayatollah will make the Sheikh become a joke. If you argue not, than put the Fatwa back and wait for comments. Too bad how can highjacking reach inside wikipedia..you have no right, no ligitimact to remive that Ben Baz land mark mistake Fatwa. It is like removing Khomein`s Fatwa against Rushdie from his article. Wouldn`t that be nuts!! chubeat8—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.198.139.38 (talk • contribs)

I am not sure who Esti-Mezza is, but once again you have failed to review the official site policy on personal attacks. This is not "hiding" or "ranting" and no sane and reasonable person would disagree. Wikipedia has rules and if you want to edit then you need to follow them. I already explained to you why you shouldn't be hurling the term "Wahhabi" around, and your notion that any one of us here that is pointing out your reckless disregard to site policy is part of some sort of an international movement is absolutely baseless and uncalled for. If you want to be taken seriously then you need to stop insulting other users.

Furthermore, the issue of the fawa on Khomeini has been explained to you numerous times. You still have brought the same tired argument with no new information, so i'll give you the same old explanation. Bin Baz was the subject of the very first public pronouncement of Bin Laden, the biggest terrorist in the world. There is ample evidence through the sources that that was controversial, though as Itaqallah pointed out even that may not meet the standards of notability. The fatwa on Khomeini caused no international outcry and could only be found by someone specifically looking for it. There is no secondary source to support it's notability as a source of controversy, unlike Khomeini's fatwa on Rushdie which caused a very large amount of international outcry.

As for the issue of your IP address, that IS part of the real debate. Check the official site policy on sock puppets; it is indeed a very serious manner and it has become apparent to a number of editors that you may be in violation of this. In fact, right now you just made these comments from one of the many IP addresses you use yet still signed it as Chubat8. If you don't understand why all of this is an issue then READ the above policy. MezzoMezzo 03:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

---

From the criticism to credit side. Ben Baz have contributed with his Fatwas to stabilize Saudi Kingdom and to fight against Terrorism. Why removing the section about his efforts against terror! Is it because that is something bad he did agaisnt you fellow Mujahedeen! I am not accusing, I am asking..put his efforts against terror back in his article. Also please MezzoMezzo do not even talk about unrreadable arrabic reference. Because long youi have maintained Albaanee article that relayed on Arabic sources. Forget translation. Because if you give youeself the priviledge to translate. We can post here an official govvernment translation so to speak.

Let me know how you are discussing the situation with your brethren in Da3wa and what you have as answers. I hope more people join to show you and the comand control chiefs that we are not stupid to swallow whatever Missionaries come to post here. chubeat8—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.198.139.38 (talk • contribs)

You used a primary source to show what he said. You did not provide any evidence whatsoever to show that the fatawa to "stabalize Saudi Kingdom and to fight against Terrorism" were notable. If you can't provide a legitimate citation showing why your insertions warrant being included - and citation is NOT your own opinions - then they should not be included.

As for the references on the Albani article, you asked about the sources (and signed the comments as Swampant) and I added on a site where you can find English translation of the specific references that I had added initially. The citation was complete and you have nothing to complain about. Furthermore, the state of an entirely separate article has nothing to do with Bin Baz so please don't change the subject. MezzoMezzo 03:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks MezzoMezzo for the answers, although you confuse me with other people. But we will find you secondary sourses and notability proofs. By the way, as you know better about Ibn Baz and Albaanee, can you tell me if Albannee endorses Ibn Baz Fatwa on Khomeini! just to help me understand, or that was unpopular and relate to Ibn Baz opinion!Chubeat8—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.198.139.38 (talk • contribs)

The Hidden reality of Ibn Baaz

The least to say about this Saudi Mofti -Religious Jurist- is that he himself is a very controversial feagure. When he was appointed a judge, how many heads did he decree to chop? see here [1] for an example of what is not controversial according to MezzoMezzo and here [2] . Didn't he say according to MezzoMezzo's favourite and allowed article content that who ever says the earth is not flat deserves punishment!? Now his followers cover up under arguments like: ohh the guy was blind..etc..Did not he say that Imam Khomeini is Non-Muslim? Did not he say that none should be allowed in the kingdom to celebrate the birthday?? did not he make a U turn in his Fatwas? once he forbid for foreigners to work in Saudi Arabia, then after holding an office and after getting close to the rulers he even issued a Fatwa allowing foreigners not just to work in Saudi Arabia, but also to fight and drink some beers near by Mekka. This scholar is in no way far from being controversial. These realities are not original researches like Missionary Tablighi Jihadists are preaching. These are facts that should be reflected in this article abused some users. Swapant and chub8 and what ever you like to call me.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Swapant (talk • contribs)

First of all, the videos of executions don't actually prove anything except for that executions took place. The number of executions that Bin Baz may or may not have ordered is irrelevant, as that in and of itself does not prove that there was a significant amount of controversy. It doesn't matter what is or isn't controversial to me or you or anyone else. Provide a secondary source proving the existence of this supposed controversy, otherwise stop disrupting the talk page.

Second of all, you don't know me and don't know what my "favorite and allowed" article is so please review the official Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy as the intent behind your comments is very obvious.

Third of all, don't refer to people on here as "his followers". You have demonstrated multiple times in this one comment how little heed you have paid to the policy on personal attacks, you really need to calm down with the hysterics.

Fourth of all, whether he did or did not change his opinion about various issues is irrelevant to this discussion so please don't change the subject.

Fifth of all, you saying he is far from controversial is just your opinion. Review the official Wikipedia:No original research policy because what you've continuously inserted and suggested IS original research. PERIOD. There is no discussion to even be had on that one.

Lastly, calling people jihadis who abuse this article is almost crossing the line. I'm telling you again, you need to cool it with the personal attacks. MezzoMezzo 21:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Good, Good MezzoMezzo and his concensus partners!! keep the good work ok. This article is an excellent B.S sample. But that is no issue, if there is a market demand on B.S why not having this kind of staff on Wikipedia. I personally like I have red before, came to a conclusion that Wikipedia can not be reliable..I let you enjoy it, my appologies if my contributions have disturbed some Saudi Sheikhs and their sympathisers at night as they were deligently working hard to present the Extreemist Sheikh ibn Baz- (and now Albaaanee!!)as a peace lover. That Sheikh -like ibn Baz- who says make peace but NOT LOVE with Jews in one of the rare racist comments of our times. I got no time to spend on this and hope you enjoy the Da3wa and missionary work. May allah bless you for conquering wikipedia. Do not hesitate conquering the rest..Swapant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.222.197 (talk • contribs)

I don't have "consensus partners". What this article has is a version which is informative as a biography and is the result of much work, no thanks to you. You claim it is "B.S" yet every insertion you have suggested for both this and Albani have been inappropriate and disruptive. You even accuse them both of racism with absolutely no backing whatsoever - proving that you are incapable of abiding by the official Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. On top of this, you have once again violated the official Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy as you have done in almost every comment you've made. Have you been reading the site policies at all? Do you even take that into account? It seems as though you haven't read a thing i've posted.

Regardless, I and others will continue to watch over these two articles. Your attempt to conquer these two pages through the useage of sock/meatpuppets has failed as will any other attempts to do so. Do not compromise the integrity of this site. MezzoMezzo 00:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

My call for Swapant is please do not continue to post edits and comments in here because they now use the S.Puppet appology to manipulate this article. I hope you understand..thanks Chubeat8

If you would pass that onto Jean-François Lafleure, KAWAKIBI and your other personalities, that'd be great.Proabivouac 05:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

"Shaikh ibn Baz 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" as per what is written on this article. So is there anything more racist than this!! I think Islam is not what this Shaikh and his Da3wa group are about. Sorry Chubeat, but he asked about a proof why Ibn Baz was said to be racist!! Now he is fried in his own oil MezzoMezzo and co-personalties ITAQALLAH and the other Proabivouac. found this article by coincidence!! who knows..Or may be they Swapant—Preceding unsigned comment added by Swapant (talk • contribs)

Chubeat8/Swapant, you're not fooling anyone.Proabivouac 23:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

That isn't racist because "non-Muslims" do not constitute a race. The mere suggestion is ludicrous. Normally I would say enough so to destroy your credibility, but that would require you to still have some. As for what you think Islam is, great, good for you. That's just your opinion. Basing edits off of it, as has been said before, is a blatant violation of the official Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. Furthermore, claiming someone is racist based off of a statement that has no mention of race is a blatant violation of the official Wikipedia:No original research policy.
As for the notion that Itaqallah and Proabivouac are my co-personalities, this is not only comical to me but also a very weak attack even for a common vandal. If you check their respective talk pages, you can see clearly that I contacted them and asked for their assessment of both my position and yours in this matter. If you had read the official Wikipedia:Resolving disputes policy, you would see that informal third party mediation is the most basic step to sorting issues such as this out. Your baseless attack on all three of us only digs you in deeper. MezzoMezzo 02:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

he is not a contraversial figure, rather he only remains as a contravery to those unaware and those kept aloof from reality User:al-boriqee

His life and education

Ibn Baz admitted that he does not memorize any of the classical Islamic books, and he did not read all of Sunan or Musnad Ahmad.

This information is very relvant and it is appropriate. It is regarding his education and knoledge and it is his words. MezzoMezzo does not like it and he claims that it contradicts with WP:ATS, but it does not.--Arawiki 21:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Recently, User:Arawiki undertook the following edits: here, here, and here. The issue here is similar to the issues mentioned in earlier discussions on this page - while the cited source does indeed establish that Bin Baaz made the comment contained in the edit, it does not establish the assertion that the statement was notable or relevant to a biography page. All this user has provided in support of the position that is does belong in this article is a personal opinion that it does, alone, without any sort of reasoning.

The Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in the manual of style is very relevant here, as is the Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information section under the official Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy. Simply including a random quote without any sort of context or proof of relevance is inappropriate and should be removed.

In addition, this user also wrote the following in the last two edit summaries:

"This is important info even if you don't like it," and

"This information is very relvant and it is appropriate. It is regarding his education and knoledge and it is his words"

The most noticeable claim which appears in both summaries is that the information is important, relevant, and appropriate. To date this user has not attempted to seek discussion or to prove these assertions. In addition, the first edit summary teeters on the edge of both the Wikipedia:Assume good faith behavioral guideline and the official Wikipedia:Civility policy. I will ask that other concerned editors please monitor this page for such behavior in the future to help ensure a friendly and effective editing environment. MezzoMezzo 21:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but you have failed to show any reason why these information are relevant. In fact this information is very relevant as the section is about his life and his education. This information talked exactly on how knowledge he has, which is important information regarding any Mufti, especially a man who cannot read. --Arawiki 19:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I explained very clearly the above issues and how they relate to the above mentioned guidelines and policies. If you refuse to accept it than fine, but please do not lie upon what I have said as my comments are clear for anyone to read them. As for this information being relevant, you keep saying that but don't explain why. Whether or not he has memorized the Musnad of Imam Ahmad - a collection of more than 20,000 hadith that very few have ever memorized entirely - is as mentioned above a random fact and you have not explained the context or it's wider relation. As for him memorizing no classical books, it is well known that Shaikh Bin Baaz memorized a large number of books from the scholars of the past. Either the source is being misquoted or it is inaccurate and one non-English source that shows only two or three results on a search hardly satisfies the official Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Once again, don't try the weak "you have failed to show any reason" excuse. This as well as other policies are part of the site and are right there for you to read; I have provided you the information and reasoning while you have provided just an opinion. While your opinion is as valid as anyone else's in and of itself, opinions are not what we base edits off of.

Unless you can actually provide reasoning based on official site guidelines and policy as to why this information is relevant to the article, then you're simply edit warring and any more unbacked opinions (in the way of site policies/guidelines) will be ignored. I am not trying to be rude to you as I don't have a problem with you personally, but if you're not willing to follow the site rules and work in a civil and mature manner with other editors than you have to understand that it is difficult to take you seriously. Please think about what i've said. MezzoMezzo 20:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Now you are loosing your temper and you have started a persoanl attack. I have showed very clearly how these information are related. And don't even think about the verifiability after you have already admited that "the cited source does indeed establish that Bin Baaz made the comment contained in the edit". The quote is there in the Arabic version of this page if you like to read the origial Arabic quote.

By the way, no body have talked about memoring the Musnad of Imam Ahmad. He did not even read it. He did not read his Imam's book, and he did not read most of the Sunna. --Arawiki 21:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's take this one at a time:
"Now you are loosing your temper and you have started a persoanl attack."
This is false and I challenge you to show where in my comments I lost my temper or launched a personal attack. I would also highly recommend you review the Wikipedia:Assume good faith behavioral guideline in regard to this and the official Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy in regard to your edit summaries here and another article, as you are teetering on the edge of it. Please do not accuse me of things I clearly did not do.
"I have showed very clearly how these information are related."
No, you didn't. You simply said it shows his knowledge and that it's relevant. That's not showing anything other than your opinion that it is relevant. You haven't explained comprehensively any sort of reasoning beyond that.
"And don't even think about the verifiability after you have already admited that "the cited source does indeed establish that Bin Baaz made the comment contained in the edit"."
I made that comment because I was assuming good faith about your source. However, on this site all external links are subject to official Wikipedia:Verifiability policy whether that sits well with your or not, and whether my earlier comment about the source's soundness was right or wrong. Just because I said that doesn't mean I can't go back and recheck (which I have done just now - see below), this isn't third grade.
"The quote is there in the Arabic version of this page if you like to read the origial Arabic quote."
I just did check it, and either you read it incorrectly or are lying; I am not sure which as your constant personal attacks and edit warring have cause me to question your good faith. He says that he read the Sunans but didnt complete them all (this is ONLY basedon the arabic thing, I have to look at his bio for truth) and he said he read a lot of the Musnad, just not all of it. Also keep in mind that he went blind at the age of twenty and had to resort to listening rather than reading things for himself. Please do not prey on most of English Wikipedia's readers' inability to read Arabic source, or if you really did misread it than be more careful next time. "By the way, no body have talked about memoring the Musnad of Imam Ahmad. He did not even read it."
Again, what you're saying here is a blatant falsehood even according to the very reference you put up in the article. "He did not read his Imam's book, and he did not read most of the Sunna."
That he did not read most of the Sunnah is an entirely new claim of yours that you should really back up with evidence if you insist on saying it.
Arawiki, I am trying very hard to assume good faith about you but, as the official policy states:

This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary.

I don't know if perhaps your Arabic skills are still developing or if you were counting on nobody else that can read the Arabic version of this page noticing your edit, but either way the inaccuracy has now been brought to your attention and you need to cease this edit immediately. In the meantime, please review the official policies and behavioral guidelines I have shown to you as they will still help you in your future endeavors on this site regardless. For the time being, I am considering this matter closed. MezzoMezzo 21:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Just for reference, i'm going to post the text of question number twenty from the interview which is where he talked about how much he read of the Sunans and the Musnad:

س20 : تحفظون عن ظهر قلب عددا من أمهات الكتب؟

ج20 : لا ، لا أحفظها ، قرأنا الكثير ولكن لا أحفظ منها الشيء الكثير ، قرأنا البخاري ومسلم مرات ، قرأنا سنن النسائي وأكملناها ، وسنن أبي داود وما أكملناها ، قرأنا سنن الترمذي وأكملناها ، قرأنا سنن ابن ماجه لكن ما أكملناها ، قرأنا جملة كبيرة من مسند الإمام أحمد ، والدارمي ، وصحيح ابن خزيمة ، نسأل الله أن يتقبل وينفع بالأسباب
So we can clearly see that the reference does not say what you're saying it does. I'll assume good faith for now, but you need to drop this. MezzoMezzo 21:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Is Arawiki this same fellow again?Proabivouac 00:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. The last user was using mostly web sites of Shia persuasion, Arawiki is using the same methods of mistranslation I noticed last times but his edits on other articles was mostly pushing Sunni jihadi-takfiri/khariji web sites, some of whom support known (Sunni) terrorists. Same behavior, different guy, that's my assessment. MezzoMezzo 01:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The same insertion was just done again, despite the fact that the evidence disproving it is right here. No edit summary was provided either. I'm not sure if this is just trolling now; this needs to stop. MezzoMezzo 02:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

MezzoMezzo, please calm down and stop this angry language. This will not lead you any where? Please stop attacking me and read the official Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy.

While I have showed very clearly how these information are related, you try to close your eyes and say: I don't see anything. By the way, thank you for bringing the quote from the Arabic version of this page. Now we can clearly see that the reference says what I said it does, but for your information, this sentence does not make sense: "He says that he read the Sunans but didnt complete them all ". He started reading these books but he did not complete them. That means he only read parts though his entire life. I wish you better luck with translation. --Arawiki 17:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The complete translation of the Arabic text is:

Q: Do you memorize any of the Mothers of Books (i.e. classical Islamic books)?

A: NO, I do NOT memorize them. We (i.e. he is his staff who read for him) have read many (of them) but I don't a lot from that. We have read (Sahih) Bukhari and (Sahih) Muslim few times. We have read Sunan Nisae, but we did NOT finish it. We have read Sunan Abu Dawood, but we did NOT finish it. We have read Sunan al-Tirmidhi, but we did NOT finish it. We have read Sunan Ibn Maja, but we did NOT finish it. We have read a big part from Musnad Ahmad, Sunan Darami, and Sahih Ibn Qutaiba (note: no such a book). We ask Allah to accept...

Now it is valid to say that Ibn Baz admitted that he does not memorize any of the classical Islamic books, and he did not read all of Sunan or Musnad Ahmad. Arawiki 23:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The original text is: "تحفظون عن ظهر قلب عدداً من أمهات الكتب؟ فقال الشيخ: لا، لا أحفظها. قرأنا الكثير ولكن لا أحفظ منها الشيء الكثير، قرأنا البخاري ومسلم مرات، قرأنا سنن النسائي وسنن أبي داود وما أكملناهما. قرأنا سنن ابن ماجه لكن ما أكملناه. قرأنا جملة كبيرة من المسند (أي مسند أحمد) والدارمي وصحيح ابن قتيبة، نسأل الله أن يتقبل وينفع بالأسباب." - مجلة "المجلة" عدد (1006) 23-29/5/1999، صفحة 28، والمجلة تصدر عن الشركة السعودية للأبحاث والتسويق.

In anyways, unless Ibn Baz is a lier, he does not memorize any of the classical Islamic books and he is not ashamed of admitting that. Arawiki 06:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, are you kidding me? Look, i've put up with this for a while but you have to be joking now. You literally just posted the Arabic text, which i've already done twice, and mistranslated it. As I pointed out, not only did he finish the two sunans but I just provided you a second source that clearly shows he also memorized Bulugh al-Maram, another one of the traditional books. Your edits are absolutely not supported by your reference and are also disproven by another reference and you need to stop inserting this edit now, as you have provided no relevant defense of it. MezzoMezzo 09:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Read the Arabic text again (and get a reading glasses if you need). The words "وما أكملناهما" means "we have NOT finished them". Ibn Baz did not finish reading any of the Sunan. However, this is not the point yet. The text that I am inserting says that Ibn Baz does not memorize any of the classical Islamic books and he is not ashamed of admitting that. Bulugh al-Maram is not a classical book but rather, a small partial-collection of Hadith (without even Isnad) by the late auther Ibn Hajar. Other than that, Ibn Baz did not even claim he memorize it, it is rather your claim. Please see the official policy WP:OR. Even if he does, that does not count. All of the translations (mine and yours) agree that when he was asked: "Do you memorize any of the Mothers of Books (i.e. classical Islamic books)?" he said: "NO, I do NOT memorize them". This fact should be stated.Arawiki 05:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

This has been going on for a month now and you still have yet to actually explain this accurately. As I told you, in [ttp://www.alifta.com/fatawa/fatawaDetails.aspx?BookID=4&View=Page&PageNo=1&PageID=974 this] interview he says: ""No, I have not memorized them, we read a lot from them but I have not memorized a lot from them." I have not memorized a lot from them, he did not say he didn't memorize any of them in completetion. He goes on to say further, "We read Sunan an-Nasaa'ee and completed it, and Sunan Abee Daawood and have not completed it, and we read Sunan at-Tirmidhee and completed it..." so he actually did have an-Nasa'i ahd Tirmidhi. It's quite obvious that that isn't even close to what you're inserting, which claims that he didn't memorize any of the seven books mentioned.

On top of this, we can see very clearly from here that he indeed did memorize all of Bulush al-Maram (and a great deal of Bukhari, apparently) and whether or not Bulugh al-Maram is not a "classic" book is merely your opinion. We not have a source that doesn't back up your edit and a second source that disagrees with it. Finally, you have still failed to show how this random fact is relevant at all considering not only that there are more than seven "classical" Islamic texts of which we don't know how much Bin Baaz memorized, but there's also the fact that as I mentioned before [[WP:NOT#TRIVIA|Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We are supposed to avoid trivia sections and it would benefit you to review Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. You have still not explained, outside of giving your own opinion, why this random fact should be included and if you cannot reconcile it with the above mentioned guidelines - not to mention the fact that your citation for it is faulty at best - then it will not be allowed. This business of you simply saying "it is important" and inserting it without elaborating has gone on quite long enough. MezzoMezzo 09:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Since you took the time to post your own translation here, I decided to give it a chance and extend the benefit of the doubt once again. I've been looking at it for an hour or so and even asked a friend of mine to double check it just in case i'm missing something. It appears that I am not and that there are issues with your translation here.
As has been explained to you before, the "we" in the text DOES NOT refer to his staff; this is purely your own insertion and he never mentions any sort of staff. Furthermore, you've completely ignored what I explained about "we" in the Arabic language commonly being used by a person of higher social status when speaking to a person of lower social status, in this case the Grand Mufti of an entire country speaking with a magazine interviewer.
Furthermore, I want to give a more accurate translation here:
"No, I have not memorized them, we read a lot from them but I have not memorized a lot from them. We've read al-Bukhaaree and Muslim a few times. We read Sunan an-Nasaa'ee and completed it, and Sunan Abee Daawood and have not completed it, and we read Sunan at-Tirmidhee and completed it, and we've read Sunan Ibn Maajah however we did not complete it, we read a large portion from the Musnad of Imaam Ahmad, and Ad-Daarimee, and Saheeh Ibn Khuzaymah, We ask Allaah to accept it and benefit with its cause.
So we can clearly see that he did indeed complete Sunan an-Nasa'i and Sunan at-Tirmidhi, so the insertion is incorrect and not supported by the reference. Also, he didn't say Sunan ibn Qutaybah, he said Saheeh ibn Khuzaymah, so you should really be careful for such mistakes while translation. I would also like to point out that he also memorized Buloogh al-Maraam as you can see here, so he has indeed memorized a number of books.
This is one of the reasons why non-English sources in general should be avoided. On top of this, you still haven't proven the relevance of this issue aside from giving your own personal opinion that it is important.
Also as an aside, please leave your comments at the bottom of the section rather than in the middle as it's difficult to find and/or read and may prove confusing for another editor who wants to find out what the discussion is about. MezzoMezzo 04:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Please show me where I lost my cool or where I used angry language, because I don't see any anywhere. As for the policy on personal attacks, I am glad to see that you've linked it and will assume that you at least read it; this, of course, means that you should cease the accusations that I have attacked you because I clearly have not done so. Please stay on topic.

Also, you have still failed to show how the information is related; you have once again simply said you did and provided no reasoning, as anyone can see. If you feel you already did then just repost it but I really don't see where you offered more than opinions. As for the Arabic reference, are you joking? Are you really being serious? I understand that maybe your Arabic skills are still developing but come on, all we have to do is get other Arabic speakers in here to back up what I have said: he clearly states in the interview that he read most of the Musnad, and that he read the Sunans and just didn't complete them. That sentence makes perfect sense: a person can start reading something and not finish it, especially when they went blind at the age of twenty. You do also realize that reading isn't the only way to learn, right? That there is such a thing as listening? Or are you suggesting that a blind person can't become educated? I know that sounds ridiculous but it's the only conclusion I can draw from what you're saying.

Nevertheless, you have dragged this on far enough. The evidence is there: he clearly states that he did actually read most of the sunans and the musnad before going blind as a young man, which is an impressive feat for a mere 20 years of age. And you still have failed to demonstrate it's relevance. The insertion will not be allowed to stay. If you continue to tout this mistranslation that has clearly been brought to your attention, then I will be forced to get others involved. MezzoMezzo 18:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You know exactly where you have used your bad words so don't play that game, you close your eyes so you can say "I don't see anything"... Come on dude I don't have time for games. And back to the translation, for God's sake, say the truth once in your life time. He never said that "he read most of the Musnad" but he said "WE have read large part of the Musnad". Well, how large is that? How much percentage? We don't know... But we know that Musnad is a big book so evey 10% can be considered as a large part. Besides that, "WE" here means a group... It is hard for you to understand since your Arabic skills are still developing, but a native speaker from the Middle East like me can tell you that "WE" means a group. The Saudi government appointed a man to read books for him since he does not memorize any classic book. "We read" means they read and he listen. --Arawiki 22:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

If you really feel that I have used bad words then again, please point them out; this vagueness is not helping the situation. I don't see anywhere where I attacked you personally and you simply saying I did with no proof is somewhat akin to you saying that the information on what the shaikh memorized is relevant simply because you say it is. This makes little sense and you need to back up your statements if they are to hold any weight.
As for your personal attack about me needing to tell the truth for once in my lifetime, you do not know me and do not know how truthful I have been in my life up to this point. Your insinuation that I haven't told the truth up to this point in my lifetime is a blatant personal attack and you have now openly violated the official Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy.
As to the actual issue at hand, I find the lack of understanding you're displaying here odd as you claim to be a native Arabic speaker from the Middle East. It is well known that in the Arabic language "we" does not always mean people in a group, but can refer to an individual person; this is most often used in the context of a person of higher social status speaking to someone of lower social status...like the Grand Mufti of an entire country, which Bin Baaz was at the time. This is a common form of speech that can be seen not only when other Muslim scholars speak but also when you have elders speaking to youth and even Allah speaking to mankind in the Qur'an. The word of we, of course, being "nahnu" and we see the grammatical variants of this in the text above - "karana'", etc. This also occurs in other languages, such as the British Queen referring to herself as "we" in English speech.
In regard to the issue of "a large part", 10% is not a large part of anything; it is small because it is a percentage and I find it odd that you would use that analogy. A large part is, by definition, large and 10% is small. In addition, the Musnad of Imam Ahmad is not a book, it is a series of books numbering more than twenty volumes, though I will assume good faith and that perhaps you were aware of that and made a typo. Also, your admission that he did read an unknown portion of the book sort of goes against your earlier statement that "He did not even read it. He did not read his Imam's book," but I will assume good faith on that as well.
Lastly, your claim that the Saudi government appointed someone to read for him again is a statement that you need to back up with proof, which I don't think you can. It is well known that he would have a number of his students read for him when he got older, and we also know that he sat with a large number of scholars as cited with the article, and he doubtlessly learned and memorized much from sitting with (and listening to) them.
In closing, I don't understand why you're saying these things especially considering you claim to be from the Middle East, as the fact that "we" does not always refer to multiple persons and that "10%" is not "a large part" are fairly basic. There is also the aformentioned issues of you claiming to have already proven the issue's relevance and that I have attacked you personally. On top of this, between both your Arawiki account and your IP address you have violated the official Wikipedia:Three-revert rule policy on both this and the Salafism article and you need to correct that. MezzoMezzo 02:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to reiterate, I would like to post the full original text at the bottom of this section here. Since the last comment was posted in the middle of the paragraph for some reason, as was my response, it could prove confusing as chronologically the comments are all over. The original Arabic text in question:

س20 : تحفظون عن ظهر قلب عددا من أمهات الكتب؟ ج20 : لا ، لا أحفظها ، قرأنا الكثير ولكن لا أحفظ منها الشيء الكثير ، قرأنا البخاري ومسلم مرات ، قرأنا سنن النسائي وأكملناها ، وسنن أبي داود وما أكملناها ، قرأنا سنن الترمذي وأكملناها ، قرأنا سنن ابن ماجه لكن ما أكملناها ، قرأنا جملة كبيرة من مسند الإمام أحمد ، والدارمي ، وصحيح ابن خزيمة ، نسأل الله أن يتقبل وينفع بالأسباب

The translation says: "No, I have not memorized them, we read a lot from them but I have not memorized a lot from them. We've read al-Bukhaaree and Muslim a few times. We read Sunan an-Nasaa'ee and completed it, and Sunan Abee Daawood and have not completed it, and we read Sunan at-Tirmidhee and completed it, and we've read Sunan Ibn Maajah however we did not complete it, we read a large portion from the Musnad of Imaam Ahmad, and Ad-Daarimee, and Saheeh Ibn Khuzaymah, We ask Allaah to accept it and benefit with its cause."

Therefore:

He read the entirety of Sunan at-Tirmidhee before he went blind,

and he read the entirety of sunan Nasaa'ee before he went blind.

As for "no such book as Saheeh Ibn Qutaybah", it's Ibn Khuzaymah, however Arawiki your translation was incorrect in this.

He also memorized completely Buloogh al Maraam, so it's not valid to say he didnt memorize any of the books of Sunnah and Hadeeth. (Proof: al-Imaam Ibn Baaz - duroos wa mawaaqif wa 'ibar - Page 125 ) We also still have the outstanding notability issue at hand as well. MezzoMezzo 04:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Despite it being known now that this edit does not conform with the reference involved, its insertion still continues without any explanation at all. This is both disruptive and edit warring. Not only is it incorrect in regard to its own reference, but even if it were correct in accordance with its own reference, it still wouldn't be relevant what he didn't read. I'd also reckon a guess that he never read Dr. Suess' Cat in the Hat, and that he never read Catcher in the Rye. He probably never saw Casablanca or Jurassic Park, either. As has been explained previously, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This edit has been discussed, it is neither appropriate nor helpful to the article and the fact that it has continuously been inserted despite this, often without any explanation at all, is pure trolling. This has gone on quite enough and needs to stop; if not, this dispute will have to be resolved with the help of administrators. MezzoMezzo 14:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

As-Salaam 'Alaikum. Indeed the addition of those claims of Sheikh Ibn Baaz rahimahullaah not knowing the Sunan has no relevancy, and should not be included in this article. All it does is make obvious certain editors' biases and what particular manjaj they adhere to, and such things have no place in an article like this one. Furthermore, let us assume the claims of editors like Arawiki are true. Does this take anything away from the immense contribution he made to Islaam? Does this make him any less of a scholar? Does this make him seem any less knowledgeable than he really was? Why don't we consult with those who sat with him and benefited from him. I know such people, and they would laugh, if not want to wage war against anyone who made such baseless claims!

It is one of the many truths of life: the greater you are, the more you are despised. But the opposite is also true: you also recieve more love as well, and Alhamdulillaah, those who love Sheikhna Ibn Baaz rahimahullaah more than they love their own parents -- for it is from the Religion to love those who are upon the Sunnah more than those who are not -- those who carry with them this great love for him, will always defend his good name against the slander of those whom he refuted during his blessed lifetime! My final point: I see no reason why anyone here other than MezzoMezzo should have the final say in any of the decisions made here. It's obvious he is the only impartial one, and he is the one who has offered terms of compromise, even though they do more harm than good. Leave it to him, those of you who are insincere, and that would be better for you. Remember: though he is dead, rahimahullaah, if he were alive, he probably would not be as harsh to you as you are to him.

Wa as-Salaam 'ala man ittaba'a 'ala al-Hudaa. Bu Seif

Last dispute on Ibn Baaz`s knowledge

It is clear that ج20 : لا ، لا أحفظها ، قرأنا الكثير ولكن لا أحفظ منها الشيء الكثير means that he did not say he doesn`t know by heart the mother of the books. Yet, he said he knows not all (which can mean knowing most or little). So Mezzo and his group are right here. If Mezzo and his friends get out of the panic mode and stop thinking that all their oponents are the same guy that will help. It is not clear why no picture was added and always his, Uthaymeen and Albani pictures are not displayed. If thsi means something, that is the fact that those refusing or taking aways pictures are practicing wahabis as in wahabism it is forbidden to take pics, except the king pics of course. This was a comment not to argue so you start telling me I am the same guy as whoever I do not even know, this is to register something that says this article lacks credibility. Despite all this, I never care if it is still not taged neutrality dispute..good faith was a good shot Mezz Chubeat8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chubeat8 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Jazak Allah khair ak, I knew it wasn't you either. We don't agree on things but I know you're not a khariji/jihadi person, which is the kind of stuff Arawiki has been promoting on other pages. Barak Allahu feek. MezzoMezzo 13:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"It is clear that ج20 : لا ، لا أحفظها ، قرأنا الكثير ولكن لا أحفظ منها الشيء الكثير means that he did not say he doesn`t know by heart the mother of the books. Yet, he said he knows not all "

Hey Chubeat8 where did you learn Arabic? no offence but the literal explanation is the following:"NO, NO, I do not memorize it, we read a lot but I do not memorize -from it- a lot" So Chubeat8, you are wrong in sayying: " he said he knows not all (which can mean knowing most or little." !! frankly what most or little! he said he does not know a lot meaning clearly he knew a little. So please do not join the falshood and add credibility to Mezzo-Mezzo as his points are getting weaker and weaker over time. Just if you can stay away, he will not have to tell you that you bribe others to join the opposition of the way this article is made. Best way is just forget this article forever and people of common sense will surely react. If not than let them enjoy the article the way it is. swapant 8:14 pm, 6 september 2007 (UTC)

You ARE Chubeat8. Please stop having an argument with yourself because noone is buying it. MezzoMezzo 20:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

good luck with personal attacks Mezzo-Mezzo. Chubeat8 23:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chubeat8 (talk • contribs)

Mezzo-Mezzo also good luck with POVs you admit yourself and accuse others for them like this one [3] , nothing better than one admitting doing POVs himself. in the Proavobiac talk page, Mezzo-Mezzo granted himself the right to accuse a group of people of sockpupetry and granted himself the right to go over others` contribution. Now that others learned from him, he accuses them again of Wikistalking!! common, make better sense. This is the type of person that accuses others for vandalism if they make a gramatical correction. Wiki-community is getting gradually alerted finally. Chubeat8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chubeat8 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this has got to be the weakest attack you've made yet. You Wikistalk my contribs three months back to July and see an instance of where I correct myself and use that as a basis for a personal attack on me? I have to say, you've really topped yourself. If tracking past the several hundred edits i've made in the past three months to find the one random instance where I made a mistake - and openly admit to it as you conceded, making your criticism of that even more confounding - isn't Wikistalking, then I don't know what is. As for my comments on another user's talk page (which again is kind of creepy that you follow me around this much), Wikipedia has granted me the right to both investigate occurences of sockpuppetry in order to help report them and clean the site and also the right to revert edits if they are not helpful to the article. As for the accusation that I have called the grammatical corrections of others vandalism, I challenge you to prove this personal attack. You certainly won't find it here, as I have already had to correct a legitimate act of vandalism in the form of an intentionally placed spelling error. Honestly, I hope you/Swampant/Kawakibi/Jean Luc-whatever/Dr. Johanson continue posting this nonsense, as it will only help build the case against you and your tom foolery. MezzoMezzo 05:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Abusing the knowledge of Wiki-rules:

Do not worry Mezzo-Mezzo the great participant mashallah, I learn from you and will look in more your contributions and analyze them and at the end make a case. It smells realy something illogical going on. In all the articles even Muhamad the prophet has a criticism section. In the Wahabi scholars section, criticism is forbidden!! Notable controversial fatwas are barried like Ibn Baz declaring Khomeinie as non Muslim. Pictures of those scholars are banned aswell. Guys, this is Wikipedia not Saudia. You gotta leave the picture one of the users posted and stop putting covers on scholars faces. At the end they were not women to cover their faces. So bringing Wahabi beliefs into practice here is no workable. I undersatand that you wiki good. For you know the rules, you use them against others. now all the others can do, is see what you do and do like you, but just the first part. Master wiki rules, and instead of doing Wahabi preaching, they ought to do academic contributions. You still need to put back Ibn Baz counter terror efforts, as well as the prohibition of the birth day celebrations, and never again remove the dispute tag untill the administrator rules out. Remember my dear, I am prepared to go to all levels of administrators. I think that the clown will eat you in the comming times..Chubeat8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.198.139.38 (talk) 06:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you're seriously trying this same old tired argument that got you chased off of Wikipedia before? Nobody said there can't be criticism in the article. You, however, are trying to sneak it in with supposed informative "controversies" which are simply your own point of view. We already wen through this; you never proved that his banning of birthday celebrations or takfir of Khomeini were controversial. Just because you disagree doesn't make it notable enough to be included in the article; you were told this numerous times by multiple people before you ran off with your tail between your legs two months ago.

As for the pictures of Bin Baaz, I don't know who removed them. Please stop accusing people of doing so because of bias, as you are violating the official Wikipedia:Civility policy and the Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:No personal attacks behavioral guidelines by doing so. For all you know, the person who deleted them may have had a legitimate reason to; you should review the Help:Images and other uploaded files page as there are a lot of issues (both policy wise and legality wise) associated with posting images.

As far as your additions such as the counter-terror efforts - the notability of which you once again have failed to prove - and the dispute tags - which you have failed to prove legitimately as the trolling amd Wikistalking of a sockpuppet user are not legitimate and are not free from being removed by other editors. You are subject to peer review just like everyone else. By the way, you keep saying you're going to contact the admins...well? I'm waiting. I'd love for you to do so, as I think their reaction to a Wikistalking sockpuppet troll reporting an active contributor who complies with site policy would be quite funny. Honestly, you've been saying that since July and still haven't done anything; i'm beginning to think you don't even know how to contact the admins. Don't worry, there are plenty more editors around that can.:::

And the clown will eat me soon? I'm not sure if you're making some sort of vague threat on my life or some sort of allusion to User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me, but either way it isn't funny. Actually we could always bring him in to arbitrate as well, i'm sure he would find your behavior hilarious. MezzoMezzo 14:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

MezzoMezzo user

Just noticed that MezzoMezzo is heading towards being blocked for 3 deletions. Participants so far from Canada, USA, S.Arabia and Germany have scored disagreement on the question of neutrality. I advise a request for arbitration where all the disputing parties will have to abide by the result. This article is realy manipulated. Dr Johanson from 65.94.186.176 -public internet access- Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.186.176 (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

What do you know, another unsigned comment from a public access Montreal, where we have seen no less than three sockpuppet accounts and several suspected sockpuppet IP addresses. Please forgive me for not exactly taking this seriously. As for the number of participants, I would keep in mind that those from Canada were initially caught red handed with both sockpuppetry and sneaky vandalism on both this and the article on Albani and now have a meatpuppet from several IPs in Saudi doing the same edits here, assisting another user in vandalizing the Salafism article, and in Wikistalking me on several other articles even going so far as reverting edits of mine where I corrected grammar and such on other articles.

In regard to me being blocked, how ridiculous. Since you mentioned "3 deletions" I am assuming that you spoke of the three revert rule which I have clearly not violated, in fact I haven't even come close. And if you think that rounding up enough sock/meatpuppet IP addresses is going to trick me into violating it than please grow up, asking for arbitration will only lead to this funny business being revealed to site administration, either through a series of checkusers or simply looking at the edit history of all the offending parties. Oh, and by the way "Dr. Johanson", how are KAWAKIBI and Jean-François Lafleure doing? Seriously, this has got to be some sort of a joke. MezzoMezzo 22:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This continues to be utterly ridiculous.Proabivouac 00:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Mezzo-Mezzo look what you did here [4] here [5] here [6] , here [7] , and here [8] . very clear agenda, arbitration like the above person says is on the way. swapant 16:22, 8 september 2007 (UTC)

Swampant, you are a sockpuppet now also guilty of trolling and Wikistalking, so I would highly encourage you to cool your jets. In regard to the articles on hadith, you really need to check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith of the demise of Muhammad before you start throwing accusations around. As for arbitration, you and all your other socks keep throwing that around yet you still haven't done it. I'm going to go a step further by seeking additional outside arbitration right now because your gross violations of official site policy and tampering with valid information has become tiring. MezzoMezzo 20:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, good idea for arbitration NOW. Trolling and Wikistaking not actually what I do. You are the one who throws accusations right and left. And by the way, I did not follow you to disrupt wikipedia. I have seen a lot lot of your contribution and modified one only. I also saw a lot of good staff you did. But here in this article, all you did will not make it NOT-DISPUTED. Can you tell me since when talking on discussion page was vandalism? can you tell me why you modify other pages without having concensus? all I did is pointed out this is not neutral. If arbitration decides that it is neutral after reading all the discussion page, I will repect it. I will then only contributes in discussion page. I am not a sockpuppet. swapant 17:28, 8 september 2007 (UTC)

Trolling is what you're doing right now, and yes, even if you only did it once following my contribs for the purpose of reverting is stalking. Please review the Wikipedia:What is a troll? essay and the Wikipedia:Harassment behavioral guideline. As for discussing on talk pages, I never claimed it was vandalism and I not only challenge you to show where I did but I also encourage you to review the official Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy. In regard to my edits, I suggest you actually review the entire official Wikipedia:Consensus policy and the community section of the official Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy. As for you being a sockpuppet, please don't patronize me or anyone else capable of reading this talk page. MezzoMezzo 21:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Mezzo-Mezzo was reverted in all these by other users who have the same rights like him (hopefully Mezz-Mezzo is not going to acuse them of being me!!) Things Mezzo-Mezzo did : here [9] here [10] here [11] , here [12] , and here [13] are just example of so many disruptions cause by the said user. In the history of his participations there are a lot of reversions applied on his disruptions. May be a good idea to expose this user in this talk page and continue building the case. The other guys particpating anon please please sign in so we know you and join the discussion page..Chubeat8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.198.139.38 (talk) 15:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this is really getting pathetic. I've been waiting for you and your socks to make this so called "case" you claim you have, though without any evidence at all it will be difficult. The second link you posted was me reverting myself, because I looked back in the article history and saw that it had already been nominated for deletion once. I was following site policy, so it's pretty ridiculous that you would try to claim that's a sign of "disruptions". As for every other link you posted, that was by User:DGG. Obviously I would not accuse him of being you because he's a good editor that has been around here for a long time. Furthermore, you're the only one calling it disruptive; if you look at both his talk page and mine you will see that he simply disagreed with the proposed deletion but wanted to talk it out with me. I can bring him here to refute you as well if you'd like. MezzoMezzo 15:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Mezzo-Mezzo see: here [[14]] and start debating the ideas not the people. You made people tired of all accusations suck puppet, meatpuppet , vandalism etc..you need to understant that you have to convince the community about the following:

• why you do not allow Wahabi feagures pictures?
• why you delete Ibn Baz counter terrorim efforts?
• Why you always suggest the cancellation of articles that are in essence opposed to Wahabi vues.
• Why you never acted when this article was purely a copy and paste from Ibn Baz Saudi official webpage.
• Why you do not agree to state his famous and NON can see as not controversial Fatwa about declaring khomeini as Non-Muslim.
• Why you do not allow his banning of the celebrations of birthdays of all its kinds exposed here?
• why you deleted many contributions based on ahh: arabic references? if so why you do not allow other users to JUST nominate the artilcles based on Arabic references as -Disputed-?

Your case -if you have one- is fading.

This is the issue, sock and meat poppetry are just pretext for you to run away from these strong facts. Users only asked to nominate this page disputed and why again you oppose to nominate it disputed?

swapant 12:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I really am surprised. You're using the same tired tactics you were refuted on two months ago; you do realize I can just go back and pull up the old refutations of you, right?

• I never disallowed pictures of anybody on here. You are blatantly lying now; check the article history to see who removed the pictures. You just violated the official Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy.
• I deleted it because you only proved the existence of the efforts; not the notability of them. Please review why Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and the Wikipedia:Notability guideline.
• Your accusation that I suggest "cancellation" or articles "oppose to Wahabi vues" is another violation of the official Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy and also of the Wikipedia:Assume good faith behavioral guideline.
• First of all, this was never a copy paste of the official Bin Baaz webpage; as I refuted you on months ago, only once paragraph was copy pasted (which was removed) and it was not from the man's official web page, but from another page about him. You know it wasn't the entire article so again, you are lying here. Furthermore, I have a life outside of Wikipedia. Your sockpuppetry and tampering brought this article to my attention but otherwise, I don't spend every waking moment of my life tied to my computer. The notion that because I didn't fix it before signals some sort of deficiency in my prowess as an editor is ludicrous.
• Because you never proved the fatwa was controversial. Once again, you need to review why Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and the Wikipedia:Notability guideline, because you simply saying that you disagree with him isn't proof that his fatwa caused any controversy.
• The issue of his banning of birthdays is the same thing. You proved he said it; you didn't prove that it was controversial.
• I deleted the contribute based on Arabic references because it is not accessible to the readers of English Wikipedia, and there are already plenty of English language resources that can be used instead. Please review the official Wikipedia:Verifiability policy.

I will tell you once again that I keep removing the disputed template because trolling and disruptive editing by sockpuppet users is not a valid form of dispute. By the way, between you and your IP address you just violated the official Wikipedia:Three-revert rule policy. Don't say I didn't warn you, because I already did here. I highly suggest you go and revert yourself now as this has gone on for long enough. MezzoMezzo 17:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Back to point by point with you:

• you never disallowed pictures, so I added it and am waiting to see who will remove it and why. Just thinking someone did something is not personal arttack. Personal attack is following others to make a sockpuppet case. Knowing that all the edits are not vandalism nor are they disruptive. Look how many people disagree with you, so disputed nomination tag is in no way disruptive. Now I expect you engage in the sock and meat pupet argument, keep up that way.
• Common, his counter terrorism efforts are not just proven facts but also notable proven facts that add value to subject and to the article as a whole. I know terrorists would not like that a Wahabi Shaikh is against them, but he made a notable support for order, not all the scholars stood that firmly. So review first the wiki-link before suggesting it to me.
• That is against no personal attack, you wikistalk others and suggests deletion of many valid articles. You have been reverted so many times and still keep doing it. Yes there are some good edits, but a lot of reverted edits as well. So I am not going to do your deeds and accuse you of abusing wikipedia by doing good edits to cover up the rest, yet, the fact that you have similar requests for deletions of some articles matches the way you propagate the status of this article. Keep being reverted.
• As for maintaining an official Saudi webpage copy in wikipedia without verification and commentary on the source, I think it talks for itsself.

I leave it up to the others to state their opinions after going through this page.

• Fatwas not controversia! common, you tell me the earth is flat, the birth day celebration are forbidden practice!! common, I have been to the middle east and all the people except Saudi Arabia have no problems with Birth day celebration..we can ask for a pool here by all wiki-veterans and see if that is a controversial issue or not. Please be reasonable at least once.

You need to keep the disputed templete untill the others weigh in more and more. swapant 13:46 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• As we know from the official Wikpedia:No personal attacks policy, "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." That is clearly what you did here as you accused me of something I clearly did not do.
• You did not prove the notability of this fact so please do not claim that you did. Provide the proof first.
• You have accused me of stalking and I challenge you to prove this accusation. As for being reverted, as I explained to you already this was by User:DGG and as you can clearly see from both my talk page and his, the issue is being solved amicably and we are both working on it together, so the notion that his removal of my Prods proves some sort of issue with me as an editor is ridiculous.
• How does it talk for itself? It was not an official webpage, you even backed down from this when I showed you the actual real official page for Bin Baaz months ago.

• As for it not being controversial, you once again are only providing your opinion. You are claiming his fatwa against birthdays was controversial; the Burden of proof for that lies on you. And once again, simply proving he said it is not the same as proving that it caused controversy.

As for the disputed template, as I said before your trolling and stalking is not a valid form of dispute. MezzoMezzo 19:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

What is going on here, Wahhabi is a derogatory term!!!!!!! and so is Sufi ,Hanbali , Shii , Sunni , Ismaeli and so on. The question of Wahhabis getting offended by being called Wahhabis is not far from an American being offended for being called American..Complete non-sense but still with a very good knowledge of Wikipedia rules and a very good sneaking around using that. If time allows, I will see how many times you used similar terms in your contributions. I also saw that you feel that the term Salafi is derogatory aswell. I may lay some of your contradictions right here if I get the chance. It is true, I learned all that from you; I should now start asking for help like you do at many different wikipedia veterans and start accusing you of original research and sneaky vandalism aswellChubeat8 23:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you really aren't actually reading the pages I link you to are you? From the actual page on Wahhabi that I showed you: "Some use Wahhabism and Salafism interchangeably, though "Wahhabism" is considered derogatory."

Also, I never said Salafi is derogatory; you are lying and you need to stop. And as for seeking help with other users, as I already explained this is a part of the official Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Your personal attacks get even more ridiculous by the minute. MezzoMezzo 00:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Refuting MezzoMezzo nonsense again

• MezzoMezzo, Wahhabi is derogatory term!!! and the proof a reference based on a comment made by some one in some websites as original research!! what is this [15] ! you call it reliable source or an other missionary Tablighi machine like your TROID Wahabi Globalazation Website! you must feel shy to say you are good editor as I will take a look at the nonsense in that Wahabism page especialy about cherrypicking and referencing.

• as for your second accusation to me as lying about you for feeling Salafi is offending, here is the proof where you deleted Salafi word and replaced it here [16] and here [17] this is not to support other users stand point, but to support my claim that you are sensitive with the terms Salafi and Wahabi and think all the people are!! Based on what! On a source that should not have been based on as it is a redicule when it comes to authenticity. I would not allow my self to use such sourses. A lot of work is yet to be done with your sensitivities. I hope more wikipedians join this and weigh in their stand pointsChubeat8 01:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Honestly it's hard to believe that even you take yourself seriously at this point.

• First of all, you need to refer to the official Wikipedia:No original research policy. Original research is UNPUBLISHED information. The fact that the claim was referenced - you even posted the reference right here yourself - disproves your point.
• Number two, Tablighi's are a group from the Deobandi school of thought which has nothing to do with Troid, which is a Salafi website. I don't need to point out the inconsistency with that.
• That Troid is a "Wahabi" site is merely your opinion, as they do not claim to be anywhere so this is just your own POV. Please do not edit based off of it.
• The Wahhabism article has issues and you have falsely accused me of being the cause of them. As anyone may see on that article's talk page, you have taken every weakness of the article as evidence of my problems as an editor despite the fact that the article's history clearly shows I wasn't the one that inserted said edits. Also, I hardly see how that relates to this article.
• In regard to the first link about Salafis, if you would actually READ the diff you would see that the fact that Wahhabism and Salafism are sometimes used interchangeably was repeated twice in two consecutive sentences; I merely removed the first occurance as saying it twice is redundant and not in line with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style.
• In regard to the second link, that insertion was an instance of POV and as you can see I wasn't the only user that reverted that specific edit. Once again you have failed to check the page history to see what the real issue was.
• Furthermore, you are once again violating the Wikipedia:Assume good faith behavioral guideline by assuming that I am editing in bad faith without direct evidence; you do not know me or why I make certain edits unless I have expressly said why. You can not read minds.
• But what's more, suppose theoretically I am sensitive to those terms. Exactly how does this relate to the fact that you did indeed use a derogatory term to refer to me? And how does my sensitivity about the term Salafi relate to this article at all? It seems like you're just throwing out a Red herring.

The time that you have spent Wikistalking me and attacking my integrity as an editor, you could have actually been trying to make a valid case for your edits. Instead you have resorted to mudslinging and petty character assassination. I am not asking this rhetorically: do you honestly think that anybody reading this discussion is going to think what you're doing is at all reasonable? MezzoMezzo 04:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Case against Mezzo-Mezzo

Please do not consider this a personal attack. This is an argument showing Mezzo-Mezzo who strives to correct articles here and there and who in fact was covering two articles that were sitting on non-sense mainly Ibn Baz and Muhammad Nasiruddin al-Albani.

For example, user chubeat8 noted that the article on al-Albani is badly referenced here [18]. Mezzo-Mezzo reacted by referencing the bad paragraphs here [19] here [20], here [21] and here [22]. After that I notices that the page is still unrefereced as needed here [23], right after that Mezzo-Mezzo comes in again and added references here [24], here [25], and here [26].

Findings:

1- Where was the deligent [Mezzo-Mezzo] who persue the others for speedy deletions like here [27] here [28] here [29] , here [30] , and here [31] while the articles he monitors 24 hours are not allowed same treatment?

2- If Chub8 and others are sockpupets, how can a deligent Mezzo-Mezzo harry to find out references for them and accuse them of sockpopetry after?

3- Sockpopetry is something that comes with bad faith. Where the bad faith here other than making a point or signaling a disagreement or a page as disputed!

4- And finally I get the impression that user Mezzo-Mezzo waits for sockpupeters to show him what to do. Just the fact that he hurried to give references justifies that the article was long in need to an accuracy templete. Just the fact that he runs to correct an article like that justifies something was wrong with that article. Yet, he does not add references and join the talk, he removes the templetes, accuses others and correct the article afterwards. Tell me where is the logic please here as I am hungry to know.

swapant 14:38 9 September 2007 (UTC)

This just gets more and more pathetic by the minute. You're literally just repeating the same tired, refuted accusations over and over. Saying "this is not a personal attack" doesn't change the fact that you're still both trolling and stalking me.

1. As I said before, the issue with those articles is explained in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadith of the demise of Muhammad. The fact that you still haven't dropped this proves that you didn't even bother reading the discussion at that AfD page - which I have already asked you to do - and undercuts your point here.
2. Whether a person is a suckpuppet or not, if an article needs attention in the way of references then that needs to be addressed. The fact that you are a sockpuppet doesn't change the state of an article; please review the Wikipedia:Citing sources style guideline.
3. As for the bad faith here, this very talk page is evidence of it. You see, I find it funny that you're just trying to focus on me; both User:Proabivouac and User:Itaqallah caught on to your tom foolery and the rubbish you posted earlier in which you were caught blatantly using both sneaky vandalism and sockpuppetry is proof enough of that.
4. As for your impression of how I edit, I don't particularly care what you think of me personally. In regard to templates, I remove them in this case for the aformentioned reasons that your disputes aren't legitimate. If you're accusing me of doing that on all articles than please prove that accusation, otherwise your point here is moot.

If this is the best you can do then I am not impressed. Your disruptive editing has already been revealed by several other editors and that you would go to the trouble of "making a case" against one of said editors responsible for exposing you is just the peak of irony. MezzoMezzo 19:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

i advise to instead of personal attack, you can seek a solution on this article, after waisting time on teaching wiki-policies here and asking for support everywhere and attacking all you can, you still do not make a reasonable point on WHY would this article not be tagged disputed after you yourself had inserted changes after others provoked it. Why you always remove the tags even before stating your clean up especially for Al-Albaani article? do you want to convince me that the article is ok and needs no tags of referencing and so on despite the fact you yoursel rush to seek references? who buy that other than you! keep up with personal attack Mezzo-Mezzo as time will uncover your case. If you do not mind and if you are a real wikipedia, please can you clean your language a little bit? from unnecessary low class expresions: "caught on to your tom foolery and the rubbish you posted earlier in which you were caught blatantly using both sneaky vandalism and sockpuppetry is proof enough of that. "

Do not get nervous, bring Vandalism proof here and I am happy to discuss that with you. Thank you Mezzo-Mezzo my friend the deligent Wahabi taught globalizer. swapant 16:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you have made three accusations of me personally attacking you in this very edit and still have yet to back a single on up. Need I remind you that per the official Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy: "Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack." You really need to back up what you're saying here as it is serious. You, on the otherhand, clearly attacked me in this edit: "Thank you Mezzo-Mezzo my friend the deligent Wahabi taught globalizer." Your sarcastic attempt at friendship aside, Wahhabi is a derogatory term as I have explained to you multiple times over the past few months. It would seem that not only are you blatantly making a personal attack on me, but resorting to a childish "I know you are but what am I" tactic. This is absolutely ridiculous.

As for my activities to counteract your disruptions, seeking third party mediation is a part of the official Wikipedia:Resolving disputes policy, though you give the impression through your comments about me wasting time with policies that you don't seem to care; I certainly hope that isn't the case.

Furthermore, there is no need to clean up my language as I have not insulted you; rather, I have brought attention to your behavior and I seriously doubt anyone is going to take seriously the accusation that me referring to suspected sock activity as "tom foolery" and "rubbish" is inappropriate.

In regard to the tagging of this article, I have explained it to you multiple times that not only are you guilty of both trolling and stalking me, but that you are also currently suspected to be a sock puppet and thus your tampering is not taken seriously. As for your activity both two months ago and now, there has been a strong indication of sneaky vandalism underneath the types of vandalism, as you have stated openly that your intention with posting seemingly informative sections on some of the man's views (without proving their notability first) are in actuality an attempt to display criticism; this is both dishonest and underhanded.

Also, I honestly don't understand why you're bringing up the Albani article here. This talk page is for discussing this article, not the references I added to improve another one.

You have proven that this is a textbook case of Ididn'thearthat syndrome, and I am posting that article subsection right there because you need to READ IT. And by the way, the stalking me onto the talk page of the admin who protected this article to almost copy-paste my own comments to them? Very, very low class. Honestly, I want you to take a step back, look at this entire discussion, and ask yourself who in their right mind would assume good faith with what you're doing at this point. MezzoMezzo 22:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Examples of MezzoMezzo`s abuse of the system

an other case where you falsely accuse others for sockpuppetry:

click here to verify yourself:

• The IP address 212.12.160.47 is assigned Saudi Arabia
• The IP address 216.198.139.38 is assigned to Canada
• The IP address 213.166.128.39 is assigned to Saudi Arabia
• The IP address 213.166.130.78 is assigned to Germany

you can add this to it. At the end, he deposits complains to at least 3 administrators and 2 wikiveterans. No personal attack this wikistalker will respond just watch it. Chubeat8 02:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

According to an actual WHOIS search, 212.12.160.47, 213.166.128.39, and 213.166.130.78 are all in Saudi while 216.198.139.38 is in Canada. I would also keep in mind that: "For the purposes of upholding policy, Wikipedia does not distinguish between meatpuppets and sockpuppets." Please cease with this disruption.

Furthermore, I was never harassing anybody nor did Anthon "report" anything, and the issue was solved amicably as can be seen here. and you should already know this considering that you have been Wikistalking me all over, sifting through every edit I make. DO NOT troll my talk page like you did here again; you have no right to do that. The next time you do so will be considered vandalism. You have been warned. MezzoMezzo 03:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

ok Mr, make sure not to vandalize my page with your nonsense and wikistalk me again. Now that everyone knows you, I can dream flowers. But for the sake of Wikipedia, any sneakiness from your part will be reported and contested on te talk pages untill you stop patronizing public interest like the other user said to you in you talk page. Next time you vandalize my page, you are warned. By the way, you have no issues, just complain complain..tell the admins about the litigated issue not just professionaly sneak around users. How many complains so far! they all know you by now, a deligent wikistalker.Chubeat8 03:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

1. I did not vandalize your page; I warned you not to troll mine again. You need to actually read the official Wikipedia:Vandalism policy.
2. I never Wikistalked you. You trolled my talk page, made a post here on a talk page where you're directing comments at me, and responded to your trolling on a project page. Do not accuse me of something I clearly have not done.
3. Nobody accused me of patronizing public interest on my talk page; please do not lie.
4. "Everyone knows you", accusations of sneakiness, accusations of complaining due to a lack of issues (despite the fact that you and your socks have clearly been stalking and harassing me across several pages), and lame attempts at Transference are teetering on the edge of the official Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy. I have had to remind you about all of this too many times for this behavior to still be excusable. MezzoMezzo 03:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

uss-cool is back AGAIN supporting Chubeat8 on the issue of dispute of this article

First of all guys, I am not a Wikipedia geek. I love to watch debates on talk pages and enjoy learning from them. The only reason why I participated couple of months ago was the fact that a user was asking for support and created a support log on this page. This time, I am back because a sneaky user wrote about me this: "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 ". I ask this vandal to appologize and withraw his comment. I am not a wikipedia geek again, but I see some staff that one can not ignore. The said user needs a real evaluation by the administrators and a promise not to be tough headed again. I will be pleased to see him more unveiled because he knows how to play with rules very well. uss-cool —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uss-cool (talk • contribs) 16:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This has got to be the lamest attempt at sockpuppetry I have ever seen. Not only are your only two contribs made in support of another sockpuppet account - not even of a specific edit, but simply joining up to support that user - but your using the same exact tired personal attacks of "playing with rules very well" and asking the administrators to "evaluate" me. Also, noticeably like the other accounts, you seem unable to actually contact any admins despite frequently using that "threat" in nearly every attack on me. This is getting real old. MezzoMezzo 16:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

list your admins and I will now contact them uss-cool —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uss-cool (talk • contribs) 17:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

"My" admins? Are you kidding me? Please stop wasting my time and the time of anyone else reading this. I've tried good faith with the lot of you, but in face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary my patience has been tried. If you're going to campaign to report me because of some sort of imaginary policy you think i've violated, then you should at least familiarize yourself with said policy enough to actually deal with violations of it. MezzoMezzo 17:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

listen dude, i ve got no time to waste on policy and familiarization. i joined a petition log in support of one user once in my life feeling sorry for the guy with good points that does not know how to put them together. now i ended up insulted by you in all kind of ways. i did not even put an article. ijust stated my opinion and got all this bible old testament from you. why don't you just leave people alone free to state their opinion. god knows what you will do if i edited this article!!!. so i wish you will take a good follow up from the other guys and your hat removed so we see the bald head. uss-cool —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uss-cool (talk • contribs) 17:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Bald head? What are you even talking about? Regardless, if you aren't willing to learn and abide by site policy than it is difficult to take your concerns seriously. That, and the fact that your only actions have been to spam comments in support of a known sockpuppeteer. MezzoMezzo 18:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

pointing out my opinion is spam for you is nt it. start with respecting yourlelf again i did not spam i only made an opinion clear. since you have been gossiping like italian oldies of the neighberhood about who is this whis is that..you better bring a good argument on the table. so far from this page. you only talk about this person and that person instead of this point of view and that point of view. bald head is actually what i saw on top of how you harrass the others orticles from example links..i still did not finish reading what that is about, but it seems that you are fraudulent. i forgot my self talking to you, but you make good attraction for wikipedia.uss-cool —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uss-cool (talk • contribs) 19:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth, please don't accuse me of harassment when I am innocent of that, and please don't liken me to strange ethnic stereotypes either. As for what I talk about, really, is tossing around shots at my integrity going to get this anywhere? MezzoMezzo 21:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Solution offer for this article

Instead of wasting time on unrelated discussion. I decided to throw a good will offer to close the case on this article:

1- I see the Counter terror efforts paragraph on Ibn Baz as relevant, notable and tells about the subject.

2- I see that a picture of the scholar needs to be shown - at least untill you replace it with any one of your choice or others choice- No face covered pics are accepted the one in the article you refered to previously- .

3- Wiki standards templet should remain.

4- We continue the discussion on the talk page with mutual respect about the rest.

Let me know what your take is. Please feel free to disagree, but if we disagree again, then the article is disputed and should remain as such.Chubeat8 04:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous.

1. What you FEEL doesn't matter one bit. You have to PROVE that it is relevant and notable. Otherwise, your claim has no proof and holds no weight.
2. I don't care about the picture issue. You already falsely accused me of removing it despite the fact that the page history clearly shows it was someone else. Put any picture of him you want as long as it's in line with copyright policy, I don't care and it's a non-issue.
3. No. You have not explained why a single concern of yours here is legitimate - all you say is your opinion and what you "see as relevant". In fact you're not even explaining here why the template should remain.
4. If you bring actual reasoning as to why your suggestions are legitimate than the discussion can continue. So far, all you have done is explain what your opinion is and launch a long series of personal attacks on me.

Furthermore, disagreeing over ambiguous, unexplained demands is not a valid form of dispute; your comments here and previously have explained neither what sort of reasoning based on site policy your edits have nor why the template should be placed to begin with. If you do not cease this behavior, I will request that the article be protected again. MezzoMezzo 04:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me rephrase for you:

• His counter terror fatwa is notable as was the khomeini fatwa gainst Rushdie. How can a decisive Fatwa by a prominent scholar on an international global issue be NOT NOTABLE. so let me know if you need further help to understand here.

• It is perceived that the article is maintained by Wahabi Appologists. Unlike all other major scholars articles. Only the Wahabis do not put pictures and when pictures are put they are removed. So nor do I care what picture, but I am fighting for the principle of uniformity in wikipedia.

• The discussion should continue on the issue of controversy section and best we can talk point after the other and seek maximum input from Wiki veterans.

• furthermore, if we dispute this again and no agreement is reach in this room, you can request locking the article and I will request unlocking it. easy..so better have good faith and come we work together. Thanks again and do not go too far with liking your deligence in the propagation you know.Chubeat8 05:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Man, you really don't get it. You have brought absolutely no proof whatsoever of that fatwa's notability; just your own opinion. All you did here was literally just restate your personal POV. In fact, in your criticism of the article's maintenance all you're doing is talking about your own perception. As for having good faith in your edits, this talk page is proof enough against that. Two Wiki veterans already weighed in on this and agreed strongly that you are indeed guilty of sockpuppetry and sneaky vandalism; furthermore, if you continue putting the tag up because you aren't allowed to insert a section without justifying it's notability, then that coupled with the bad faith in your edits by myself and others points toward trolling. Back up what you say with evidence or your insertions will not be allowed. MezzoMezzo 05:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

proof on the notability of Bin Baz's fatwa on terrorism

i support putting the fatwa againt terrorism on the main article page for the following reasons:

Reason1: if the guy who issued this fatwa died 8 years ago and in his official page in the front welcome page his fatwa against terrorism that happened 11 years ago are still displayed than no doubt this counter terrorism fatwa is notable. i noticed that some pages some users where refering once criticized they subsequently shut down for maintenance and after the article or the piece is no loger there or is changed. if this fatwa is subsequently removed from ibn baz official website main page, some users bald head will be uncovered and will be accused for conspiracy.

reason2: نشرت في جريدة المدينة في 25/5/1416هـ. that means the source of his fatwa dates back to 1996 gregorian at the madina newspaper. are the people maintaining bin baz stupid to put irrelevant staff in bin baz welcome page of his official website!!!!or they need mezzomezzo give them a hand on notability!!!!!how rediculous?

when is this guy going to stop systematic vandalism!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Mezzomezzo is totally uncovered now i guess. do not forget to harass the argument and not me dude. uss-cool —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uss-cool (talk • contribs) 15:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, something appearing on a webpage is not proof of notability. The guy has been dead for years and it is not likely that his web page will be updated regularly anytime soon. Furthermore, there are millions of webpages on the internet. Something appearing on one is not proof of notability and you clearly need to review the Wikipedia:Notability guideline to see what actually is.

Second of all, removing unnotable material that has still not been proven to be notable is not vandalism; you also apparently need to review the official Wikipedia:Vandalism policy to see what that actually is.

Third of all, you keep talking about me being bald or something, and it's weird. Please stop. MezzoMezzo 17:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

you still no shy to come back??i use metaphore, if you are wahabi (no offence) and take the words literaly, then it s your problem. i visited the notability i man guess what, this article needs a notability tag. this will certainly back fire on your whole argument.

Counter Terrorism Fatwa was reported originaly by an independent source from the subject جريدة المدينة في 25/5/1416هـ which is the madina newpaper in arabic. No original research as it states his letter on the issue.

Conclusion, the original source is independent unlike the Saudi gazette on which many of your prefered parts of articles are based. forget not that the official website -arabic- of which this article was literaly copied, put to english and pasted [32] is not independent neither. so once the lock is removed, i will put notability tag + disputed tag+ insisting the counter terror paragraph stay. thanks you and from you people should learn a lot on familiarization staff..you must feel shy to argue more. besides, i never seen a page that was not updated for 8 years. this was a response for your dramatic insertion on websites maintenance. it must be suicidal for an admin to join your call as i saw they all now distance themselves from you--Uss-cool 18:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)--70.50.247.190 18:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again, all these personal attacks are getting more and more pathetic by the minute. First of all, the Saudi Bin Baaz site is neither independent, nor a proof of notability, nor accessible to readers of English Wikipedia, nor does it prove this fatwa is more notable than any others. Proof of notability requires a secondary source and if you refuse to abide by that then your insertions WILL be removed as POV.

Second of all, you and your other accounts were already refuted two months ago on the notion that this article was a copy paste of the English Bin Baaz page, as I demonstrated conclusively than only one paragraph was copy pasted, by an entirely different user, and after I proved it was just one paragraph that paragraph was edited to avoid any copyright issues. So your point on that is moot.

Finally, you really need to watch your tone as your comments are again teetering on the edge of the official Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy. MezzoMezzo 18:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

you said:" First of all, the Saudi Bin Baaz site is neither independent, nor a proof of notability, nor accessible to readers of English Wikipedia, nor does it prove this fatwa is more notable than any others. " based on this, all the article need a notability tag. you are cought now on the show. just refer to the version you always revered this article to you find out that you are contadicting your self. you reverted many times the article see what you did always here, always reverted to Arabic language version. now you say all the website is no proof of notability.. you become more and more a wikijoke..--Uss-cool 20:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Why do all of the article need a notability tag based on that? The references here are from English sources. Furthermore, all you did here was link to the page's history, not any specific edit of mine - though I am not surprised because I never, at any point, reverted this article to an "Arabic language version". Not only are you posting blatant falsehoods here, but you're not even making any sense. MezzoMezzo 20:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

you know that i ceased taking vandals without sandals seriously so say all wish, this page of discussion shows you from all your dimensions and readers if someone volunteers they better sum up all thgis in a vandalism report.--Uss-cool 21:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You keep throwing that word around, so i'm assuming you haven't read the official Wikipedia:Vandalism policy. Here, i'll help you out: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." I think that speaks for itself. MezzoMezzo 21:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

don't worry, i just take your hat and let the community know the reality of your actions. i surprisingly following you wiki familiarization advice, i fould out at leat 2 would be wiki admin candidates meat puppeting with you. the case is being worked out and this is not its place here, but as a note to the board of the opressed people. there you can defend yourself. --Uss-cool 21:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again you're resorting to petty personal attacks, and once again you're accusing two of your fellow editors of being meatpuppets despite the fact that they registered their accounts completely independent of myself and were editing their own articles long before I contacted them. You don't even know what a meatpuppet is nor do you seem aware of what a civil discussion is either. Did you even read the policies I linked you to? MezzoMezzo 22:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

VERY IMPORTANT SNEAK TACTICS REVEALING HERE

guys please make sure not to confuse this with this. The first one is: http://www.bin-baz.org.sa/ which has been showing counter terror fatwa in the front page that supports the argument it should be put in front page in this article. The second one is: http://www.binbaz.org.sa/ with no such thing in the front page. WOW from bin-baz.org.sa to binbaz.org.sa. any ways, i have a snap shot of the old web site from page that has been around for long time and ready to post it anytime needed in case if they shot down to early one. there an undoubted connection between some users and some organizaions. i also see that mezzomezzo did not hurry like usual to answer after getting a pager beep.--Uss-cool 17:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, something appearing on the page does not prove it's notability. There are a large number of fatawa on that rarely updated page and one appearing on the front versus anywhere else doesn't actually prove a thing; though considering that earlier you actually reviled official Wikipedia policy I can't say i'm surprised to see you disregarding it here as welli. In addition, if you're accusing me of having some sort of ties to this guy's website then please come out and say it and try to back up that absolutely hilarious claim, or just drop it because you're really not fooling anybody. MezzoMezzo 17:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

see my answer to you on ntability in previous tittle regarding the reference source which is not the website itself, yet the website took it from the Medina News paper.--Uss-cool 18:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I corrected the link so click the medina news paper here to see the independent sourse quotting the sheikh and what we call in journalism, important coverage. do it before they shut down the website!! or ask me later for snap shots --Uss-cool 18:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Once again, you are using the same weak argument you used for the birthday fatwa. A newspaper reporting that fatwa isn't proof of it's notability for the sake of the article as it does not claim it was any more significant than his other fatawa. He was the grand mufti - i.e. the top religious authority - in Saudi and during his lifetime the papers reported on fatawa he made every day. Pulling one out isn't proof of anything other than him saying it, as has already been explained to you numerous times both two months ago and now.

Also, thanks for elaborating with the same tactics so much. If there ever was any doubt you're another sock of Chubeat8, you've dispelled that now. MezzoMezzo 18:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

mezzomezzo you are finished in this discussion and now you start attacking the person..poooor you, i wish you do good in the arguments but so far your points are peanut. BE CAREFUL NOT TO VANDALIZE MY PAGE AS YOU DID TO OTHERS IN YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS. If you vandalize my page, i will complain to the department of the oppressed people. i found about that from the wikipedia familiarization link you gave in this page like a read deligent red eared student. thank you so much see you at an other wikijoke from your part as you have decided to joke--Uss-cool 20:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

if i catch you again using a sourse that now you say not notable! god knows and just imagine how shamful that will make you in front of this community. just remember what you say because the tactic to know a liar is make him forget and ask him again.--Uss-cool 20:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Again and again and again you continue to violate the official Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy.

1. I never vandalized your page. Ever. This claim of yours is false.
2. I never said the source itself wasn't notable; your claim that I did is false.
3. You just called me a liar, and that is the clearest example of a personal attack you have done.

Honestly, what do you wish to accomplish with this other than creating a strong candidate for one of the lamest wars ever? MezzoMezzo 20:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

vandal without sandal

mezzo, you are by excellence wiki rule mastring vandal. here you accuse others of socketpupptry. here you are cought red handed doing vandalism. here you are cought without sandals acting against general interest and out of prejudice, here a wikipedia veterans cought you screwing up and asks you to be open minded. here a wikipedian cancells you purposed deletion and look at what you answer (Apparently the ibn Arabi article does mention yaqin, seven times I believe. That's incredible that I completely missed that. MezzoMezzo 14:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC) ). Here you were cought red handed vandal without sandal vadalizing Ali's page in typical wahabi manner. so should i say you are vandal without sandal veteran!!!!!!!!!!but very far from a good editor. listen, any admin siding with you here especially those meatpuppets that came to help you last time, is risking a scar of reputation. that why some of them have already distanced themselves from you foolery. you have a record that smells miles away.--Uss-cool 21:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I see you're going poetic with your insults now. Regardless, your accusations based on the stalking back through months of my edits you did still falls flat.

1. Per the official Wikipedia:Sock puppetry policy, I was reporting suspected sock puppetry.
2. Linking an edit of mine where I explained to another user than good-faith edits are not vandalism, and then using that as an example of vandalism, is just the height of irony.
3. A user disagreeing with one of my edits does not indicate edits "against public interest", nor does it indicate prejudice and for you to say so is another violation of the official Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy.
4. Hassen Iqbal is a good editor but he is not a Wikipedia veteran (he actually registered about six months after me) nor is a simple disagreement an example of "screwing up".
5. As for the issue related to those Prods, I really don't see what your point is. The editor had a good point and I accepted it; unless you are criticizing me for not being right in every single instance, your point is moot.
6. This last one is the best example. I was preventing that user from inserting POV, and if you don't believe me than check his talk page; he was banned from Wikipedia permanently for consistent uncivil behavior and inability to work with others. Him attacking me as he did to many others (and as you're doing to me right now) isn't a sign that i'm "vandalizing".
7. Furthermore, my asking Itaqallah and Proabivouac to come in as neutral third parties was part of the official Wikipedia:Resolving disputes policy; meatpuppetry is something entirely different and for you to erroneously accuse both myself and those two gentleman of committing that act is insulting and wildly irresponsible. Furthermore, them growing tired of reading this nonsense by you/Chubeat/Swapant/Kawakibi/Jean Luc-whatever/Dr. Johnson isn't a sign of them "distancing themselves from me" and you need to stop pretending as though you can read my mind or the minds of others.

Also, since I still have not received an answer, I must ask you again. What exactly do you intend to achieve by all these personal attacks on me? You've basically demonstrated outright that you're Wikistalking me and trolling this page. Do you really think this is going to get you anywhere? MezzoMezzo 21:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

this will lean neither me nor you any where. this is how you started accusing others and me especially as many people in one. so i give the ball back to your face and see how it will taste to you. as for my point it is very very simple. I registered my support for a petition, you started accusing, i saw how you accuse, i did like you, i find out you are a veteran in vandalism. that is how it developed. my goal is clear, i denounce your stuborn attitude you are ngaging in and ask you get away from this article or let others make their point. AGAIN NO PEWRSONAL ATTACK to defend your self. Mr VETERAN.--Uss-cool 21:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, both myself and several other editors noticed sockpuppet behavior with all three of your accounts months ago. The difference between what I have said and your personal attacks is that I actually have an amount of evidence to back my claim up, while you admit right here that you're only doing it to "see how it will taste" to me. That is not only inappropriate but also very immature.
Furthermore, you have still not yet proven these accusations of vandalism and if you continue calling me that (on top of all the other insults you've called me) without proof then that is yet again a personal attack right here. MezzoMezzo 22:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Chronicle of MezzoMezzo Vandalism in this article

• He removed a new section of Ibn Baaz`s notable fatwas. Why! he found it UNECESSARY.
• Here he again reverted the article to its original form -which was the exactitude of the Arabic page like many have mentioned. This time he found it not unnecessary, but has an issue of CONSENCUS.
• here he removes a paragraph sayying it is a blatant POV.

look what he does here, after being tied and look how he will instead of basing on the Website, he will just do fraud. In other words go inside the website, see their references and put it directly in the reference section to avoid others being based on that website. NOT knowing that he is just in the process of teaching others. see how he brings the references from the websites here, here, here, here, here, here, and here and here then shows that he does some real staff by doing [33]. What a coincidence. all that reference missing and MezzoMezzo is not aware untill a bunch of sockpupeters come in to alert him! none can buy this.

• Check this. here he removed POV and Referemnce tag without concensus and after admitting there is dispute.

• Here he admits sections in this article are disputed. Like admiting there is a dispute and at the same time removing dispute tags. Pure Vandalism.

• Here, an other Vandal comes high school essay with his pure fantasy research. AFTER 2 DAYS OF BREAK which rare from MezzoMezzo especially on this article, he come back with different story. which is changing to concentarte on person as sockpupets etc..Note that he did not go after the guy that brought his blatant original research as if there is some meatpupetting working out.

• Again, he worked out to trap new users into the 3RR rule and talked to an other user Proabivouac not facinating Wikipedian as far as his discussion page is concerned .

• by this time I got blocked and the Vandals have shifted the course from talking concesus on paragraphs to talking concensus on putting a dispute tag look here. Provo and Mezzo trapped me deliberatly fot the 3RR and kept enjoying a Wahabi blessed article. They also misinformed Can`t sleep user.

• here MezzoMezzo close his eyes on his anon meatpuppet who removed Ibn Baaz without gaining neither concesus nor signing in etc..see how MezzoMezzo goes only after anons that are critical or unveiling Wahabism and Salafism refer to his records in his discussion page. and he keeps the same gave over and over untill this article was blocked.--Chubeat8 02:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

--Chubeat8 02:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I have to say you've really topped yourself with this one. Every time I think that your gross violations of the official Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy, your trolling, and your Wikistalking can't escalate any further, you surprise me.
One thing that hasn't changed, though, is the fact that you're both highlighting legitimate edits of mine as evidence of "vandalism" or, in many cases, blatantly lying about the very diffs you're linking too. I really am not sure what you think you'll accomplish with this joke of a personal attack, but every time you create another section aimed solely at attacking me personally with one of your sock accounts you're only providing more proof to anyone reading against the fallacious point you're attempting to make.

1. There is nothing wrong with removing parts of an article that are unecesary; this is part of being bold. I have already linked this for you before so you have no excuse for not having read it.
2. I never reverted this article to the form of any Arabic source. Ever. Considering that you were already proven to have been lying about the content of Arabic language sources two months ago on both this and another article, it's a bit hard to take this seriously anyway.
3. Removing POV is a good thing and upholding the official Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy which, despite me having shown it to you multiple times, I am starting to think you still haven't read.
4. You assertion that I couldn't have missed the lack of referencing before you mentioned it is absolutely ridiculous, as you don't know what I read on this site or what I am aware of. You have absolutely no clue exactly how much time I spend on here and to pretend like you do is a joke of a lie.
5. That you would accuse me of going against consensus by removing POV and a tag placed by a disruptive sockpuppet shows that you have not read the official Wikipedia:Consensus policy. Please do not accuse other editors of violating policies you aren't even familiar with.
6. First of all, I already told you multiple times that you are trying to dispute the article but that disputes put into place through the use of multiple sock accounts and IP addresses are not going to be accepted as legitimate. Second of all, you have once again failed to read the official Wikipedia:Vandalism policy, otherwise you would know that vandalism is the deliberate attempt to compromise Wikipedia.
7. I have a life outside of Wikipedia and I am not required to revert every instance of OR inserted into an article. That you would use this as a basis for another one of your petty personal attacks only further discredits your case.
8. The official Wikipedia:Three-revert rule policy applies to all Wikipedians and you cannot be excused from that rule simply because you refuse consistently to review site policies. Also, your accusation that I "trapped" you in it is not only another personal attack but also just lame; nobody forced you to continue edit warring despite all warnings you received from multiple editors.
9. As I have explained to many times for you not to know, Wahhabi is a derogatory term and you have once again directly insulted me.
10. The user who blocked you did so because you violated the three revert rule. You are not exempt from the rules and it's absolutely ridiculous for you to insinuate that you were wronged by being penalized for breaking them.
11. You obviously don't know what a meatpuppet is, because an anonymous user who performs an edit you don't like is not by virtue of that a meatpuppet. Again, please don't accuse others of violating policies you aren't even familiar with yourself.

You haven't shown us anything new here. You're trolling, you're Wikistalking, you're launching personal attacks. You do this over and over again, consistently creating new sections on this talk page for the express purpose of attacking me as an individual. You have not answered my question, so I will ask you again: what is it you think you can realistically accomplish through this flagrant disregard of the official Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy? MezzoMezzo 02:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You still don`t sleep! not afraid of the clown! for number:

1- For this one two proofs discredit you and uncover your vandalism:

a- here the wahabi anon added unecessary staff and you ignored him. Tell the community why! is it because you agree with his wahabi original research or it is because you just cherrypic edits! worse, if you say you did not notice. Bottom line, you vandalized this article allowing aliens adding clear nonsense while preventing others from adding tags only.

b- the issue if the Ibn Baaz picture added that by user Saeed and removed by anon. you proved sneakiness and dishonest in two stages, the first you did not contest Saeed adding it, second you did not bother it removed by anon here. so your argument of caring about unecessary staff dies here.

2- This version restored by Proabivouac to your last revision in section 1 and 2 is the exact translateration of section from this biography page from Ibn Baaz official website you will turn after and say that the website does not necessarily put notable things!!! of course things MezzoMezzo cherrypics..so here is a big lie uncovered.

3- POV tag should be added even based on wikipedia neutrality rules as the only major sourse the article was based on so far was the subject`s official webpage!! so here again you make 0 sense.

4- Actually I do no not joke a lie, but I did I time-task calculation last time on your edits and the speed of getting references ready (especially hard copy ones) was beyond a superman can do. I just went deeper in your favourite refered websites and found that you pirate the references from those websites.

5 and 6 True I am not familiar with the totality of wikipedia rules. I have proven a process of proven step by step learning unlike you who uses the rules against the integrity of wikipedia to buy the integrity of especially the Salafi and Wahabi movements. Aside fro me, just your discussion page shows that others have accused you of clear vandalism and patronizing edits.

7 and 8 sure wikipedia rule applies to all, that is why no one of those you call in help me help me comes to help you, because you will harm their reputation.

9 Wahabi is not a derogatory term the same like Shii is not a derogatory term and catholic is not a derogatory term. That is your original research you can use it for a master degree in the psycology of self perception. Here, we call them as they are.

10 there are proofs you were working out to trap me in 3RR rule to report me and block me. I will see Pro and Mezzo edits furthermore to bring that proof over.

11 This number 11 applies to you.

If you wrestle the truth you get tired..so make sure to prepare some asperine and a warm pellow before the clown comes--Chubeat8 04:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Wow, this is so lame it almost refutes itself. I vandalized by non responding to an edit? So if someone posts unnecesary edits on another article I work on occasionally, am I guilty of vandalism there? You're once again showing your lack of knowledge of the official Wikipedia:Vandalism policy and launching a silly personal attack on me.
2. Furthermore, to suggest that not involving myself in a picture dispute is sneaky and dishonest is probably the most baseless personal attack you've made yet. I am not required to respond to every dispute and I challenge you to prove through site policy where it says otherwise.
3. All Proabivouac did there was remove tags. Furthermore, you once again prove your lack of knowledge of Wikipedia; the history refers to every version of an article as the version of the most recent editor, regardless of how much they actually edited. If you would spend the amount of time that you spend Wikistalking me searching this article's history, you would see that I have nothing to do with the one section that was copy pasted from that site. Seriously, this is just laziness on your part.
4. There are numerous sources and the majority of the article is not from the web page in question, so you are flat out wrong here. Furthermore, copy paste from that site is an issue with the copyright rules, not POV rules. Again, please stop speaking about policies you aren't even aware of.
5. Using web sites is part of citing sources; that you would suggest it's pirating is just confusing because that's not even coherent. Furthermore, I don't care what you think about the time it takes me to reference; I can't help it if I type faster than you.
6. You have once again launched a personal attack on me by claiming I use rules "against the integrity of Wikipedia" (whatever on earth that means) and have provided absolutely no proof for this whatsoever. People like Klak Sonn (who is now banned due to attacks such as though on my talk page) spamming my talk page aren't proof of anything other than the fact that I don't back down from Wikistalking trolls.
7. Numerous people I have called for help have responded, including the two aformentioned editors who are also convinced of your sockpuppetry. Also, what does this have to do with this article? Seems to me like you're just grasping for straws with this attack.
8. I linked you the Wahhabi page so you would actually read it. As it clearly states in the intro section, it IS a derogatory term and is one of the insults that got Klak Sonn banned. So yes, you are continuously insulting me with a derogatory term.
9. And how exactly do you intend to prove what my intentions were? You can not possibly know what I was trying to do unless you can read my mind, which you cannot. Furthermore, it's not an excuse for you breaking the rules; it is incumbent upon you to familiarize yourself with site policy and to respect it at all times, even if you think other editors are trying to "trap" you in them. Don't blame your mistakes on others.
10. As for your comment on what a meatpuppet is...wow. Just...wow. That is the lamest insult i've ever seen. I explain to you that your use of the term is incorrect and even link you to the explanation...and your response is "that applies to you". Seriously, are you intentionally trying to make your arguments as weak as possible?
11. And I will ask you again for the umpteenth time: what is it you think you can possible accomplish by creating section after section on this talk page for the express purpose of attacking me personally? MezzoMezzo 04:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

More on mezzomezzo vandalism proofs

Examples of mezzomezzo references:

added to those already listed here where he refers the readers to a wahabi website that translate to :treu believers dot com; and here where he pirated a sourse from a wahabi website the same here and here all wahabi sourses to strenghten a wahabi article. and more of the same you can see all of them are wahabi missionary websites or blogs. here are other artcles aswell:

• here almuttaqoon.com Salafowahabi blog
• He he inserts two references, both are wahabi unverifiable arabic sources.
• here he links the reader to wahabi world islamic mission website.
• Some salafi unveriviable refs especially wahabi writters writting about swahabism founder and wahabi mission!!what kind of ref is.

As has been explained to you before, Wahhabi is a derogatory term and your refusal to get the point is only making your already doomed case worse. Furthermore, non of those sites even claim to be Wahhabi so you are basing all of this on your own point of view, not on any verifiable facts. Also, you have shown your ignorance of both the official Wikipedia:Verifiability policy and the actual references I used, as they are all available to readers in English if they feel the desire to look them up. Please stop wasting the time of anybody reading this talk page, as you are creating section after section aimed solely at attacking me personally without any legit proof whatsoever. MezzoMezzo 17:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Your crdibility and smart vandalism is know now. Only wahabi sourses to edit wahabi articles, only wahabi driven arguments that is no coincidence. Can't fool more--Uss-cool 18:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

contadicting his own self and dirupting others

• Here is aplaud a controversy section. While the record of thos article, he voids controversial section from expantion and also asked for speedy deletion of the article: wahabi controverisial fatwas.
• removing a reference section for no reason.
• here he ask for a section for dispute while here in this article he rushes to remove the dispute templete.

• Here, he removes a section with refrences and adds a section without references. Contradictory to that here, he added reference templete!! everybody knows wahabis do not like yemen for its Zaydi shia culture component. but see here a not one reference wahabi article he was engaged in he did not add a refrence templete.
• here for the second time he removes most muslims and repaces it with some musims celebrate birthday!! no proof, pure original research and POV serving salafowahabi propaganda
• here he disrupts an artilcle to inject his wahabi agenda.
• here he gives himself to put POV alert on Birthday celebration article!! while refusing others to put that tag on the article of Ibn Baz who is the one behind that famous Fatwa!!
• here he defends adding controversy section to an article while in bin baz article, he refuses to enrich the controversy section!!
• here a country which in its constitution it says it adopts the Maliki mazhab -sec- our wahabi friend mezzomezzo add a reference check to this statement. Looks like he practices vandalism. but see how wahabi driven this fellow is. let him go change this then. yet look here he changes -majority of Muslims - to overwheliming majority of muslims- are sunni 85% !!no reference and citation tag!! like he did to the real overwhelmingly Maliki country Morooc article where he initiated abuse,

1. I asked for the controversy section to be returned because the one there was removed. And there is a controversy section in this article, so there is no contradiction there. As I have said before, I am opposed to your POV being inserted into the article.
2. I was removing a false reference placed by a user that was known to post up inaccurate information on occasion.
3. I removed the dispute template in this article because, as I said before, sockpuppets upset about not getting to insert POV into articles is not a legitimate dispute.
4. This next one has got to be your most pathetic attempt at a personal attack yet. You stalked me through that page's history, so I know for a FACT that you saw the later edit where I put the reference for my addition here. You had to search all through the article history to see that so please don't tell me you didn't notice me inserting the reference later on. As for your slander about Yemen, you're not making any sense and the diff you provided has nothing to do with that.
5. "Most" is both original research and POV because it insinuates the majority; some is neutral as it does not specify a number. You have also once again hurled a derogatory remark at me, in addition to demonstrating a complete lack of knowledge on what original research actually is.
6. That was an edit to a talk page, not an article; furthermore, expressing concern about POV is the exact opposite of injecting an "agenda".
7. I put the tag there because it was a legitimate dispute, unlike your disruptions.
8. This is the same as before. Your POV insertions aren't enriching anything.
9. Wow, are you really throwing out an attack this weak? There was no reference for the fact that Morocco is Maliki. I know that it is, and the fact that I added that to begin with is proof that I acknowledge that, I just didn't have a reference at the time. Anybody reading that would pick up on that. As for the second issue, that number is already referenced in the demographics of Islam article which can be reached from that very article. You took the time to Wikistalk my edits there yet you couldn't take the time to check on the rest of the article? Please.

You have once again demonstrated that you are a troll guilty of both Wikistalking and harassment. I'm going to ask you again, what do you think you will realistically achieve by creating section after section in direct violation of the policy against personal attacks? MezzoMezzo 18:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

yes i am guilty of following up with vandalist editors, i am proud to take the hat off the baldness so it shines clear. keep you argument attrition and play your foolery, only whabi sourses!! no coincidence and now i will waych your behavior if you will start assing non wahabi sourses or not.--Uss-cool 18:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Strange Behavior

• How can some one make a comment and come five months after to sign it.
• mezzomezzo never add reference or POV templetes to articles that have wahabi thought like he does for sufi and other artciles like this one.
• He removes a tag of scholar to teacher for Tamimi article as if he is the one who grants Ijaza or Islamic scholarship certification see! again original research whabi thought driven. while he give him self the right to call wahabi teachers things like Grand Shaikh etc with no academic backing.
• heremezzomezzo applauds someone who replaces an anon interms of doing good job- like he replace the anon of 5 months ago-.
• He often regards wahabi as derogatory term, how can a reference book he added a 2nd time be tittled history of wahabis??
• here the ali shrine is believed my most muslims to be his tomb. mezzomezzo inserts sectarion wahabi original research that says most shia believe it is so!! does mezzo even mind reading across wikipedia, if not reading the news!!!

I never seen such vandalism and propaganda in my entire life done this professionaly. --Uss-cool 17:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Because I was a noob and didn't know how the site worked yet. By digging this up as an attack all you've done is shown your lack of understanding of WP:NEWBIES.
2. Once again you have used a derogatory term directed toward me. In addition, you have claimed that I only use POV when "Wahabi thought" is represented; I challenge you to prove that slander. If you don't, then this is yet again another personal attack.
3. Calling Tamimi a scholar in the first place was original research. He was known to have been a teacher; there is no evidence that he was an academic scholar in the subject. Furthermore, you have once again accused me of doing this out of "wahabi" point of view, and, once again, violated the official Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy.
4. Complementing another editor for doing a good job is a good thing.
5. Because the reference itself contains accurate historical information. That doesn't somehow magically change the nature of the word Wahhabi. Seriously, a three year old would understand that.
6. Claiming all Muslims believe that is original research because there was no citation to back it up. That is basic. Also, you once again called me a derogatory term.

In addition, you also fail to realize that vandalism is the intentional compromise of articles, which I have clearly not done. As far as propaganda goes, you do realize that by stalking me as far back as six months ago and posting up legitimate edits as "proof" of "vandalism" is propaganda against me, don't you? MezzoMezzo 18:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)